beowulf

Do no post videos without commentary.

6 minutes ago, jakee said:

If you don’t think of white privilege as property then how can you think of disposing of it as Marxist?
 

How does disposing of any one type of property become Marxist anyway? Was abolishing slavery Marxist?

 

Oh, and if you can get around to attempting to explain why all people in power are racist, misogynistic Nazis just because Donald Trump is a racist misogynist with some Nazi followers that would be great. Because it still sounds really stupid to me.

I don't know how to write anything about this so that you don't misunderstand it. You totally confused everything I wrote.

7 minutes ago, jakee said:

Clearly they don’t, because that makes no sense to anyone who thinks about it for more than 5 seconds.

But let’s run with it. So anti-woke people think of white privilege as private property, and if white people successfully engineer society to enhance white privilege as much as possible, that’s a good thing because capitalism is good.

Dude, that’s a really weird thing for you to be in favour of.

You have that confused. It's not what I think or anti-woke think. That is Critical Race Theory. I think it's ridiculous. No one else thinks of white privilege as property. This came from Cheryl Harris who wrote an article for Harvard Law Review in 1993 called Whiteness as Property.

24 minutes ago, billvon said:

OK great!  So what's the "more?"

Again, I asked YOU for what YOUR definition of woke is.  Not what you think activists think.  Can you do it?  Can you define this thing you have been railing against by using your own words?  It's a very simple question.

They are almost opposites.  Marxism is a belief that we should have a classless society, where everyone works for the good of everyone else, and no one has to struggle against class (i.e. castes in India, or the wealthy here in the US.)  Woke is the awareness that there ARE struggles against class.  

To put it another way, if there ever is a perfect Marxist society (and there never will be) - there will be no such thing as woke because there WILL be no injustice in society.  Likewise, in an anti-Marxist (say, a 100% capitalist) society there will be more injustices to be aware of, and awareness of them will be more important.  For example, the woke people of the 1850's realized that slavery was a huge injustice, and worked to end it - while many southerners explained that slaves were perfectly happy and indeed better off than they would have been in Africa, and hence talking about injustice was stupid.

So I guess you could claim that being woke leads to a more classless, more just society, and that those goals align.  But if that's true, then being woke is as much Marxist as it is regulated free market, since a free market brings prosperity to more people (and reduces economic injustice) while those regulations prevent abuses common to a free market (like monopolies and slavery.)

Critical Race Theory is a version of Marxism that replaces class with race. They think of whiteness or white privilege as constituting a kind of cultural private property. Marx wanted to abolish private property. CRT wants to abolish whiteness. Woke is a way to get people to constantly focus on race by being "acutely aware of racial and social injustice". I don't necessarily have my own definition of the word Woke. I see that it's more than just being aware of injustice because of it's hyper focus on racial differences in an effort to push CRT. Robin DiAngelo in her book White Fragility essentially says that all white people are racist. So for her being woke means realizing that.

I guess if I had to come up with my own definition of woke. It would be... Woke = Hyper focus on race and racial injustice, excluding white people.

1 minute ago, billvon said:

Well, no, you really didn't.  Here's your "concise definition:"

It is the modern left/liberal culture created by algorithms on social media. It is characterized by cultlike adherence to rapidly changing ideological foundations rooted in various leftist theories. 

That says nothing about what it is other than it's a cult and it has leftist theories.  Taking away the pejorative, you have said it has "leftist theories" but haven't listed any of them.  The freeing of slaves in the US was a leftist theory; is it about that?  Equity is a leftist theory; is it about that?

Equity would be included along with Critical Theory and Critical Race Theory.

It's more than just being alert to injustice in society.

Here is how the activists would define the word woke specifically.

Quote

The notion of “getting woke” (or staying woke) is defined as being acutely aware of racial and social injustice—not just awareness and acknowledgement of isolated incidents, but awareness from a position of understanding systemic and institutional racism. … The notion of getting woke encapsulates the first stage of becoming an accomplice in addressing the system of racism… White accomplices should strive to be woke enough not to call themselves woke and instead strive to embody this state of being by building with people of color. … Be in a perpetual state of learning and be woke enough to know you are never woke enough

But all of this rolls up into Critical Theory, Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.

A better way to put it would be an American version of Marxism. Woke doesn't stand by itself.

Just now, jakee said:

{Bangs head against wall}

I know. That's why I just said that his decription of those views is absolutely, completely, obviously and very easily provably wrong. It's bullshit. It's fucking laughable. It's the biggest strawman since Christopher Lee went to Summerisle.

So why did you make such a ridiculously stupid argument?

I wrote that as apology for what I wrote originally. Not as a rebuttal as you seem to assume.

So you don't think Critical Social Justice views would consider Donald Trump or Trump supporters "to be utterly morally reprehensible. They are racists. They are misogynists. They hate trans people and want to deny their very existence. They are bigots. They are fascists. They are “literal” Nazis."

In his paragraph he expanded that to "people who occupy positions of systemic power and privilege and yet who refuse to acknowledge and work to dismantle them"

I would say that is probably correct.

I read it again and realized that you did quote the whole thing. I apologize for that.

Clearly he was describing the views Critical Social Justice and not his own.

11 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Since Woke is evolving, any single definition is just an opinion. Whose opinions count more — those who dislike something and avoid it, or those who consider and study that same thing from the inside? Who can describe the US better, an American or a Russian?

Wendy P. 

If you never read any opposing opinions then how would you ever find out if you are wrong?

If you can't argue both sides then you are not fully informed.

5 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Since Woke is evolving, any single definition is just an opinion. Whose opinions count more — those who dislike something and avoid it, or those who consider and study that same thing from the inside? Who can describe the US better, an American or a Russian?

Wendy P. 

Said another way, who has a better perspective someone on the inside of a cult or someone on the outside.

Who has a better perspective on the Wetboro Baptist Church, the members or someone outside of it?

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Quote

I don't have the time to write out all the details of what I think of Wokism, so I provided a website that has all of the points in text and video that does that for me. I couldn't do a better job than James Lindsay.

 

Sort of a cop-out to post a few thousand words condemning "wokism" and then say you don't have time to post what you think about it.

That doesn't make sense. I did post what I thought of it. You referred to my condemning "wokism", that's a pretty clear indication of what I think of it. But I also said I don't have time "write out all the details of what I think of Wokism".

I don't see the inconsistency that you are complaining about. You're objection seems to be that I don't have time to write an exhaustive essay on Woke? Really?

Instead of me taking the time to write in great detail on Woke, I submitted two videos and a website. I get that no matter what I write or reference on this topic you probably will find something to complain about.

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Sort of a cop-out to post a few thousand words condemning "wokism" and then say you don't have time to post what you think about it.

I can understand why.  Often anti-woke people have trouble defining what woke is other than "that which is bad."  As an example, conservative author Bethany Mandel recently wrote a book called "Stolen Youth" about the woke indoctrination that is going on in this country, and that is apparently stealing American's youth.  It was lauded by anti-woke cultists across the country. 

During an interview to promote her book, the interviewer asked a simple question: "What does that [woke] mean to you?"

Her answer:

"So  . . . I mean . . . woke is . . .sort of . . .  the idea that . . .uh . . .I . . .this is going to be one of those moments that goes viral . . .I mean, woke is something that is very hard to define, I spent an entire chapter defining it . . . it is sort of the understanding that we need to retotal . . totally reimagine and rean . .  re . . . reduce society in order to create hierarchies of oppression . . . um . . . sorry . . .it's hard to explain in a 15 second soundbite."  (She had been going on for 45 seconds at that point.)

Most anti-woke people can't even define the thing they are opposing.  Which again is not surprising; it's like asking an anti-socialist if they oppose socialist programs like public roads or veteran's hospitals.  They then struggle to come up with a defintion for socialism that excludes all the socialist programs they enjoy.

You must be confused. I submitted a concise definition of Woke and provided links to two videos and a website that has tons of information.

Quote

It’s no great surprise that when you ‘research’ lots of right wing sources and what they say about woke that you’ll find lots of people saying woke is really bad.

This is a dishonest way of dismissing anything you don't like. James Lindsay takes the time and effort to back up what he says with the sources. He often quotes them directly so you can verify.

The source is less important than whether or not the information is correct. A source you don't like can be correct. A source that takes the time provide their sources allows you to verify their honesty.

Quote

Its also very transparently dishonest of you to set up the idea that people won’t address the points when you haven’t actually made any. You’ve just given some vague pointers about where you’ve seen stuff and posted a 30 minute video of some random test rambling on about who knows what. If you haven’t made the point in your own words, you have not provided a point to be argued against. 

You can call it whatever you like, it's just pointing out the obvious. Link to the source is a vague pointer?

"rambling on about who knows what", nice way of avoiding arguing the points being made.

I don't have the time to write out all the details of what I think of Wokism, so I provided a website that has all of the points in text and video that does that for me. I couldn't do a better job than James Lindsay.

I stand by my assertion that Wokism is a cult. There are varying degrees of membership in this cult. It's extremely difficult for people in a cult to realize it's a cult. If you want to understand why I think that, go to https://newdiscourses.com/ or watch their videos on Youtube or Rumble. It's very in depth and the sources are all provided. Those that are in the cult will mostly disparage me and the sources rather than argue the points made. Some will just say it's wrong, which is always a possibility. The more I research this topic the more convinced I am that it's a cult with roots in Marxism.

I get that most people will simply think I am an asshole. I am and I don't give a fuck. You can't have any serious discussion with out risking offending someone. So I prefer to be upfront in saying that I will offend someone or everyone. Grow up and grow a thick skin and get over it. Life is too short to be offended by everything.

This includes What is Woke.

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Is it really though? When does she say this?

Well it might do if it was true, buuuuut…

The whole concept of "White Privilege" is an example of judging people by the color of their skin. Not only is it racist but it's also false. There is no such thing as a privilege that is granted based on skin color. I come from a multi cultural background. My father was not born in the US. I am light skinned and my father is dark skinned. I enjoy no privilege that my father does not, he lives here in the US. I have lived in another country and can tell you that the US is far less racist. The US is probably the least racist country on Earth.

29 minutes ago, jakee said:

Isn’t that explicitly the point?

Anyway, in which bit does she disagree with MLK?

One of her major points is that all white people are racist and essentially need to atone for this.

That absolutely insane and contradicts judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

If want to read a book that calls a whole group of people based on their skin color racist then that's the book for you.

8 minutes ago, jakee said:

Have you? 

Not all of it. It's a real painful read.

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh really? When does she disagree with this? 

Read the book

13 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Please define "Critical Race Theory".

Since you 'think it's bullshit', then you know what it is, right?

Or do you just think things are bullshit because you don't really know what they are and don't like what other people tell you to think about them?

I read enough to know it's bullshit. I don't have a doctoral degree in CRT. The logic is at times circular.

Critical race theory (CRT) is a scholarly and political approach to examining race that leads to a consequential analysis and profound understanding of racism. It argues, as a starting point, that the axis of American social life is fundamentally constructed in race. As a result, the economic, political, and historical relationships and arrangements that social actors have to institutions and social processes are all race based.

I bolded the part that is pure bullshit and it's racist to view everything in terms of race. 

1 minute ago, wolfriverjoe said:

And with that post, you clearly define who and what you are.

Good for you! You figured out some thing, I guess?

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Never read it.  Is your favorite document the White Declaration of Independence?

Nope, not the woke pope.  Like I said, working on it.

I agree.  Which is why woke is defined as "being alert to injustice in society" and not "defining everything in terms of power structures."

Then you have never read his speech.  Let me give you some examples:

But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. 

The conservative reply to that would be "why are black people such professional victims?  Why not check your resentment, instead of telling me I am a racist?"

We've come to our nation's capital to cash a check.

No need to describe what conservatives would say about THOSE sort of reparations.

If he gave that speech today, conservatives would say that he is telling white people to hate themselves, and shoving his sick socialist agenda down American's throats.  Then they would cancel him, the same way they did Colin Kaepernick.  Which, admittedly, is better than the way he was cancelled by conservatives back then.  Things are getting better, but they have ways to go.

It's not mine.  It's the dictionary's.  Look it up yourself.

If you are not aware of any injustice in the world, you are not woke.  By definition.

Absolutely!  But if you are alert to that injustice, it means you are woke.  Again, by definition.

 

The part that the hard core woke line Robin DiAngelo would disagree with MLK is on judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

This question, "Is your favorite document the White Declaration of Independence?" makes me think you are pretty well indoctrinated into the cult. Living in an echo chamber. Quite interesting. I am sure you will object to that as much as possible. People in a cult are notoriously hard to convince of that.

3 hours ago, lippy said:

As others have pointed out: you come on here saying woke is impossible to define and fairly cultish.  When people tell you that they are woke, not in a cult and spell out their definition you ignore it and regurgitate BS from organizations that make their money by scaring folks like you about the woke monsters coming to indoctrinate your children!!! It's a pretty odd thing to witness, really.

I think we used to jump together at SDD back in the day.  Are you Robert V?

Yeah, that's me.

I haven't been on this forum in a long time. It's funny how people can read different things into the same words. I don't recall saying it was impossible to define. Especially since I submitted a definition. What I did say is what the Woke consider acceptable is constantly changing. I think that is due to online social media.

Are you Canadian Roger?

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

Nope.  I consider myself partly woke; I don't understand all of the societal injustices people have expereinced, but I am learning more about them.  None of that is doctrine.  None of that is belief.  It is simply knowledge.

If you are 0% woke I almost envy you.  It must be very comfortable to go through life thinking there is no injustice, and there's nothing in our society that needs fixing.  Throughout my life, though, I have preferred truth to ignorance, even if the truth is painful.

Is your favorite book White Fragility? https://www.amazon.com/White-Fragility-People-About-Racism/dp/0807047414

If not then maybe you aren't the woke pope.

Anyway, I am not a fan of the term Woke, because it brings with it a lot of baggage like Critical Race Theory that I think is just bullshit. I don't agree with viewing everything in terms of power structures. 

I read your other post on Anti Woke.

You mentioned Martin Luther King, if he were to give his I have a Dream speech today the Woke mob would attack him. It doesn't fit their view of being anti racist or woke. Being color blind is not what people like Robin DiAngelo are arguing for.

Just now, billvon said:

Nope.  I consider myself partly woke; I don't understand all of the societal injustices people have expereinced, but I am learning more about them.  None of that is doctrine.  None of that is belief.  It is simply knowledge.

If you are 0% woke I almost envy you.  It must be very comfortable to go through life thinking there is no injustice, and there's nothing in our society that needs fixing.  Throughout my life, though, I have preferred truth to ignorance, even if the truth is painful.

Personally I don't buy into your simplistic view of the word Woke. You seem to simply assume anyone that doesn't agree with you believes there is no injustice in the world. It is possible to disagree with you and and believe there is injustice. Your words read more like an Evangelical Christian. I haven't been on this forum in a very long time so it really surprises me to see you writing stuff like that. Pope Billvon the great!

13 minutes ago, normiss said:

You seem to insistently refuse to accept the meaning of woke.

Yeah, you are very perceptive. I didn't agree with the previously submitted definitions and submitted one that I thought best fit the word Woke.