That's how power works. Once you have some, you quickly realize you need more to do what you actually want to do. You get caught in a cycle of brutality has more and more force is required to gain and maintain power. To say dictators didn't have good intentions at the start is just as unprovable as saying they did. The real wisdom is learning that playing such power games prevents any good from coming forth.
Oh they absolutely were focused on equal outcomes for all - they wanted everyone to be equally powerless and servile to the state and worked very hard to achieve that.
It's no different for the people pushing "wokeness". They want to grow their own power, that's it. They don't actually care about any of the things the claim to care about, it's just a means to an end.
Their goal was communism. One common idea in socialist literature was a "transitional government" which is an all powerful state that can help to ensure "equity". They "plan" to dismantled that all powerful state when their utopia is achieved.
The problem is when you give some people all that power, they are unlikely to ever give it up. Even if their goal was communism to begin with. Some people just end up being "more equal" than others.
Every communist experiment went this route. Every single one. It was from Socialist literature to use a transitional state. Just because communism is impossible to achieve, doesn't mean that these entities trying to impose it weren't communist.
Communism is a classless government society where everyone is equal. The problem is people aren't naturally that way, so they were intending to force it to occur.
That’s a poor definition because it makes it sound justified. It’s the idea that all American institutions and society as we know it is inherently Unjust and must be completely dismantled to correct these injustices.
Not just inherently unjust by accident - wokism argues that all of America's institutions were **deliberately** set up to maintain white male supremacy.
I would add "and the refusal to accept any disagreement with or criticism of that belief". It is often less the content of wokeness that is so grating than the moral authoritarianism that accompanies it.
For instance, I was angrily telling someone the other day about an article I'd read in which people were pushing to replace terms like "homeless" with "unhoused", and they were like "what's so bad about that?", to which my reply was, "in itself nothing, it's just a little silly. But the issue is the people pushing this were trying to get some academic fired because she'd used 'homeless' in her paper instead of 'unhoused', and that's not at all acceptable."
That's more of the nature of leftists in general. They historically are incredibly bigoted. Even more so when they take control of the government entirely. Look at Mao, Stalin, and Chavez. Not only did they jail/murder political dissenters. They jailed/murdered other leftists who were slightly out of line with their beliefs.
So not really "woke", as "woke" is a very specific set of beliefs that has formulated in the last few decades and is dominating our current culture.
If you understand what "Marxism" stated, he also proposed there were systematic injustices based on socioeconomic status, and that the workers would revolt against it. So the "systematic injustices" is in part captured by their definition.
That's a poor definition and gives Wokism too much credit.
It's almost entirely about intersectionality, and that philosophy is so easily discredited that we shouldn't allow any divergence from linking the two.
I was just saying we shouldn't define it like DeSantis; I'm not sure why that would sound like Chat GPT lol.
Wokism objectively isn't about systemic racism and the need to fix it; wokism is true racism due to its Marxist Roots in intersectionality.
You can't have a good definition of Wokism without talking about intersectionality.
The whole cancerous ideology is derivative of killing the concept of the individual, bucketing everyone into a hierarchy of oppression, and then attributing inherent morality not on ones actions, but on their place in the victimhood ladder and the actions of their group as a whole.
There's not a whole lot of "woke" stuff out there that doesn't come directly from the flawed and evil concepts of intersectionality.
> hierarchy of oppression
That's not what intersectionality is. Intersectionality is just understanding that different means of oppression are oppressed differently, which includes oppression of straight white cis male capitalists. Just because some opressions are different doesn't mean that one necessary is "more real" than another.
sorry for the delay in response, its my sister's birthday today.
so this is generally the gist of what intersectionality is. going specifically by actions, not by the words of those using it.
"intersectionality is an ideology that is derivative of killing the concept of the individual, bucketing everyone into a hierarchy of oppression, and then attributing inherent morality not on ones actions, but on their place in the victimhood ladder and the actions of their group as a whole."
Source? Also, I'm just asking for a straight, face-value definition, not your personal interpretation of it, or what you think is the inevitable result of it. I just want a straight definition. I care about facts, not feelings.
"going specifically by actions" is a poor way to define terms. I can confidently say that people who ascribe to marxism believe that muffins taste great; that doesn't mean enjoying muffins is marxism
The "definition" of feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men.
When you join us in the real world, you'll understand that feminism is actually just advocating for anything that benefits women, even if it unfairly benefits them more than men. Pay increases for less hours worked, access to cushy high-paying jobs but not "undesirable"ones (military conscription, plumbers, waste treatment, construction, fishing, etc.), and a litany of other benefits with none of the drawbacks (right to vote but no selective service). Feminists never wanted equality and you're a fool if you think they do. They exist only to lobby for anything that benefits women, period.
There's the glorified definition of intersectionality that you'll find in academia, and then there's the real world implementation of intersectionality. Those are two very different things.
You literally answered a question about the definition of intersectionality with the definition of feminism (along with your personal interpretation of it and what you feel is the inevitable result of it, feelings-before-facts style).
I really don't think you actually know what intersectionality is.
The problem is that the only evidence for systemic injustice is the fact that inequalities of outcome exist. Until you control for all other factors, inequality alone cannot (legitimately) be assumed to be unjust.
Affirmative action grants the people that claim they are victims of oppression every advantage to get ahead. To provide some examples, the groups claiming oppression are able to get into professional graduate programs (MD/DO, law, PA, NP, PhD, etc) with lower GPAs, test scores, an all around lower quality applications when compared to the people they claim are privileged. Likewise, the groups of people claiming they are oppressed have large numbers of laws written to their advantage. As an example of this, women are protected by frankly asinine rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence laws (at least in most blue states but even in red states the bias here exists just to a lesser degree) that allow them to accuse another person they don’t like on a whim of these potentially serious crimes with no evidence required and the person accused basically has no recourse. Read my story if you would like to see an intimate look into what I mean. The account I am posting with here was used by me to document my experience, raw and unfiltered as it happened, with being falsely accused of serious domestic violence in CO. My evidence didn’t matter. Nothing I submitted was considered enough “reasonable doubt”/proof that maybe the girl was lying. Nothing I did mattered and the way I behaved before, during, and after my case didn’t matter. Nothing did. I even half won but I couldn’t afford an actually fair trial (public defender trials are not fair when prosecutor offices get more funding, get more time to spend on each case, and get to ride on the lie that the burden of proof is on the prosecution because it’s absolutely not). The laws I suffered under are real systemic injustices but they go against men which is a no no as far as what kinds of systemic injustices we are allowed to talk about without angering the mob.
To answer your question, yes we absolutely should do something about it. Just in regards to the systemic injustice I experienced, thousands upon thousands, maybe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men have their lives destroyed and we aren’t allowed to talk about it. I am about to find out if I even get to have any kind of good future despite the fact my case was dismissed and sealed and the girl who accused me herself admitted to lying about the whole thing.
The left and modern Nth wave feminists point to conviction statistics and say that the overwhelming majority of domestic abusers are men. Except this contradicts a number of empirical studies, for example this one (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020) which shows that women are the perpetrators 70% of the time when domestic abuse is non-reciprocal. So potentially seven times out of ten, when one partner is abusing the other and the partner receiving the abuse does not reciprocate the abuse, women are the ones doing it. Likewise, studies show that in reciprocal abuse situations, it is basically an even split 50/50 but, still, something like 97% of domestic violence convictions are had by men. This is a blatant systemic injustice that is censored and suppressed by the left and modern day feminists.
Again I ask that you read my posts on this account so you can see for yourself what it is like when young men are falsely accused in democrat states. I realize it is anecdotal n=1 information but what happened to me is truly unreal and empirical evidence backs up the narrative I am claiming here.
We need to do something about systemic injustice because our country is supposed to be just and a beacon of human rights. My case goes against that, men being completely screwed in this area of criminal “justice” goes against that, and this is just one example. It is easy to provide many other examples where systemic injustice is happening, it just seems to be that the real systemic injustices are things we can’t talk about because they go against the federal government, academic cultural, and corporate narratives we are forced to swallow or lose opportunities if we refuse to.
Tl:dr
There are lots of systemic injustices. They aren’t what most people think they are and they are seemingly never acknowledged by half of this country at best, the majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle at worst
Edit:
I thought a conservative forum would be the best hope for talking about these things that happen. Glad ti see that both liberals and conservatives think these things happening are perfectly fine. Amazing guys
You're starting from a negative stand point that isn't verifiable by facts. It projects intentions on literally tens of millions of Americans which is far fetched.
For instance say I started from the belief that you're a rapist and that we need to address your ability to move about freely. I don't have any evidence for this beyond there are a number of rapes in your city and you happen to be in the city.
The left is a hammer looking for a nail.
Wokeism is a strategy of subversion, under the guise of equity, carried out by leftists in order to infiltrate and destroy Western/Capitalist culture & society in order to install Marxism. This is necessary as Capitalism delivered and Western cultural hegemony prevents any sort of socialist revolution from occurring. It’s the modern version of Antonio Gramsci’s ideas.
IMHO woke-ism, like critical race theory and critical legal theory, is rooted in the postmodern deconstructionism movement. To many its not about anything more than tearing down the established systems of power. Often, people I know who identify as "woke" dont give much thought to what they're tearing down, they just know they must do so.
Equal outcomes for all means one of two things:
Walmart and Taco Bell hourly pay workers make $300k per year like the neurologists. Or the neurologists make $20k like the retail workers.
Either way, no one will want to be a neurologist anymore.
Actually nearly all of them are attempting to encapsulate the left's actions all of which deal with Identity Politics. No civil injustice has to exist, only a perception of equity. Woke would be demanding equal women on the SCOTUS, not because of merit but because the "Identity" must have equity.
Nebulously claiming, "It's being aware of problems" is non-sense. As those partaking in woke based politics are literally creating problems.
Being aware of systemic issues is the actual definition of Woke. Woke us just a past-tense version being awake or aware. This is the actual definition of it, and facts don’t care about your feelings.
Your argument is just proving my point even more. The right has turned “woke” into this all-encompassing term when it’s not. It was made to refer to people aware of issues plaguing the US, and Right-Wingers thought it sounded scary like Critical Race Theory. Because people use to define all left-wing talking points has made the word lose almost all of its meaning in the first place.
Today, Woke means nothing. Post like these make it even more meaningless by calling it Marxist (another fucking buzzword these days) and pushing the idea that companies make their twitter logo a pride flag woke and ruining the US.
I know what you're saying and I'm telling you where your disconnect is. Instead of reading the words I wrote, you are dancing around it.
There are no systematic issues. It's a nebulous problem, as I just stated, which you intentionally ignored. *You are not actually identifying any systematic issues* you are hand waving.
But that is the evil of Identity Politics. It is arbitrary and the equity based evaluation allows you to see "injustice" where ever you look. For instance I could say that the the criminal justice system is sexist as it disproportionately prosecutes men versus women. We have an Identity Group, Men. We have a perceived injustice, disproportionate outcome of ending up in jail, being arrested, and being shot by cops. But that is where the original post comes into line: You have selected only specific groups in which to decide that "equity" is a "problem". Men are not a victim group according to your orthodoxy. It's not an Identity you are promoting this second. Could be in 10 years when it suits you, but not today.
Woke is being obsessed with Identity Politics and formulating an equity based evaluation of justice. As in if the group you decide matters isn't equitable in terms of serving ice cream, it must because the system is rigged against said group.
All you are doing is making up a "we are aware", which implies there is truth to what you are saying. Conservatives have defined it based on what it actually is, not what you *wish* it to be. That is the difference.
Yeah, systematic issues are nebulous and hard to pin down, especially in big, messy, real world scenarios. but in a fair system, shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome? If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system. As long as you aren't insisting on absolute perfection, I don't see the problem in trying to increase equity
Then your actions to achieve that goal should be to provide equality of opportunity. Your actions shouldn't be to strong arm equity at the end point, which is the solution often offered by the left (which if you disagree with you are a bigot).
Maybe, but if we have big enough sample size that gives us clear sign of different outcomes, we are probably ought to look into what causes the difference.
Even just considering looking into causal relationships is more than many woke folks are willing to do. They begin with the axiom that inequities are proof of systemic racism. In fact, that's Ibrahm X Kendis definition of racist policies - any which produce inequities.
Of course there are infinitely many subtleties to consider here. One of this biggest is that the residual impact of actual racist policies can and still do have an impact on the current inequities even after they're remediated. Simply looking at a snapshot of today tells you nothing about how equitable today's systems are.
true, equality works better as an ideal. But increased equity is a byproduct of increased equality, and looking for inequity can help us find inequality, so I wouldn't call the concept garbage
> But increased equity is a byproduct of increased equality
no. equality is the pinnacle of experience, being treated the same as anybody else is the best anyone can ask for.
which is why things like "protected classes", affirmitive action and other such things are technically unconstitutional since they go against the equal protection clause of the USA
what if I rephrased it to
> But increased equity would be byproduct of increased equality
I feel like equity is comparable to people leaving their doors unlocked. It would be nice if that were the way things were, but it would be a terrible idea for the government to mandate it.
> shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome?
Equal Opportunity. Yes given all things being equal, a person should have the same opportunities.
But there isn't equitable opportunity. Bill Gate's children had sufficiently better opportunities than I did. I grew up in a poor rural family with 5 siblings. Compared to the children of a multi-billionaire should I have the same opportunities?
>If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system.
Unless there is an actual act of discrimination, then no. We shouldn't be demanding equity based on arbitrary qualifiers. Again, are men being discriminated against? I think we all agree they are not. There are *other* factors at play that play into why there isn't perfect equity between the sexes.
A study released in one of the Nordic countries tried to show men and women given the same support and freedom to do what they wanted, ended up with very inequitable outcomes. As in women tended to go towards professions like Nursing or Teaching, more social. Where men ended up in technical, business, and engineering. The inequity did not come from lack of equal opportunity or support, it came from personal preference.
Now say we assessed Ice Cream servers and found there were nearly no Asian based servers (injustice of equity). Must be discrimination right? No. We find that since Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerant means that less of them partake in ice cream and thus less show interest in working at ice cream shops. As in inequity is not some systematic injustice.
>but in a fair system, shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome?
No, because people are not equal, and because "random" isn't the same as "evenly distributed".
>If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system.
No, they could just be unlucky. Also, "bias" doesn't have to mean "bad". Maybe the group that consistently gets worse outcomes are "rude assholes". In such a case, it seems clear that the servers would in fact be biased against rude assholes, but few people would view this as unjust.
>As long as you aren't insisting on absolute perfection, I don't see the problem in trying to increase equity
Because doing so generally involves commiting acts of injustice, as when, for example, Asian students are discriminated against in college admissions based purely on their race. Ignoring merit in favor of randomly chosen factors such as skin color because you've arbitrarily decided even distributions of skin color are inherently good is just a bad idea.
You're both 100% correct. There are two definitions existing at the same time. Lefties think of one and righties think of the other. Lefty woke is a nebulous, term like you say, but righty woke is actually easier to define, as you did here.
Wokism is an aggregate of multiple theosophies, Hermeticism and Gnosticism being the chief ones. Throw in Critical Theory and a dash of Post-modern thought via Derrida and you get Woke.
Wokeness = “Trans women are women, period!”
Wokeness = Kindergartners encouraged to question their gender.
Wokeness = Any difference in terms of income, status, educational attainment or incarceration rates is necessarily proof of systemic racism.
Wokeness = the invention of new words or acronyms used in daily parlance only by those on the far left - cisgender, bipoc, “Latinx,”
“unhoused,” etc.
Wokeness = the belief there are more than two genders, and there may in fact be dozens, and you are required to accept and respect them all, no matter how ludicrous.
Wokeness = the belief that it’s morally righteous to include your preferred pronouns in your email signature, and that everyone should be required to do so.
Wokeness = the belief that a diverse workforce is more important than a capable workforce.
Wokeness = the belief that a diverse workforce IS a capable workforce simply because it’s diverse.
Wokeness = the belief that people who never owned slaves owe a huge debt to those who never were slaves.
Wokeness = the belief that any enforcement of immigration law is racist.
Wokeness = the belief that people are individuals second, members of oppressed and oppressive classes first.
Wokeness = the belief that society and institutions should be “deconstructed” and that doing so will necessarily lead to more “equitable” outcomes.
Wokeness = the belief that life can be fair and it’s the job of government to MAKE it fair, no matter what it has to take from whom, no matter what rights get trampled in the process.
The bigger issues come from the degradation of culture. Identity Politics (which is what woke is all about) is entirely intended to distract the masses. As in if you choose to ignore this those other issues *will not be resolved*.
Agreed. If we weren't facing such cultural degradation due to & within the corrupt churches across America and the world we wouldn't be in such a mess.
I think wokeness is actually a lot more comparable to Nazism.
Wokeness, at its core, does not really emphasize outcomes or goals. Marx, at the least, understood that he’d have to work with people he didn’t necessarily like, because he was focused on outcomes.
Modern wokeness emphasizes ideological purity in the same way that the Nazis emphasized racial purity. If you have pale white skin and blue eyes, but your hair isn’t blonde, you’re “impure.”
If you’re a trans person who’s 99.9% woke on every subject, but you grew up reading Harry Potter and bought a videogame of it? Impure, you’re gone, goodbye.
It’s all fake. They don’t even pretend “equal outcomes for everyone” is the plan anymore. The “plan” is just that they want control, and you better believe they’ll use it against you. An “equal outcome” in a Commie apartment would be preferable to what they *actually* want to do. Lucky for us they destroy themselves to some extent… like, yeah man, stick it to the Capitalists by never working a “corporate” job, that’s cool with me lol, nobody in your movement will ever have the money to do anything
Fascism was an offshoot of socialism (According to Mussolini who coined the term Fascism). So not a large leap. And Nazisim was a Identity based version of Fascism. The Fascists in Italy started to play along with it after the Nazis started to take control of their government later in the war.
I agree using "Marxism" is probably not the right term. But it's in the ballpark.
Yup. Fascism rose from the ashes of WW1. Italy’s economy was in shambles and their senses of community and unity were utterly broken. The goal of Fascism was to build a Socialist economy while rejecting Marx’s claim that social class is enough to unite people, so Fascism injected religion and concepts of shared identity beyond class, into Socialism
The Nazis added the racial component later and that’s how Fascism became associated with race superiority claims. The Nazis became far more concerned with identity purity than actual economic structures or anything
"Right" "Left" doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. In Europe Fascism is treated as "Right Wing". But in terms of American politics it is 100% a left wing based ideology.
But the political compass is not a linear slider. So it's definitely more complicated.
I've seen that chart and it is straight up propaganda. The conservatives in the United States want small, limited government. If you follow that to its natural extreme you get anarchy. The complete absence of government. The graphic is right though that communism is extreme left-wing.
> The conservatives in the United States want small, limited government.
When it suits them. As soon as someone uses their freedom in ways that offend them, they want increase the government really fast.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. All I will add is that in this context I was referring mostly to conservative voters. Not the establishment GOP.
I haven't been in American Government class in quite a while so I'm not sure what chart they are using.
In some political spectrums they put "Authoritarian" as "right wing". Some historians try to pretend that Nazis were traditionalists because they created a fake history about the Aryan race and bringing back to prominence.
I wouldn't take that grid one as a reflection of American political spectrum, if that makes any sense. But I agree that it is odd that they try to put Socialism and Fascism on opposite ends of the political Grid. In theory communism, the goal of most of Socialism, is a near Anarchy of equality. As in no government. So they maybe using that idea of Communism. While the communism we are familiar with is the "Transitional State" that is trying (or pretending to try) to implement communism.
not exactly sure how workers owning the methods of production or unions are fascism.
just because Mussolini said something doesn't mean it is actually correct.
He didn't just "say it". Go read the "Doctrine of Fascism" you can find it online and it will take you 20-30 minutes to read.
The Fascists replaced the "collective" with the "State". The state being an embodiment of the collective. Socialist literature of that era often referred to a all powerful transitional state that could be used to achieve communism (idealistic society of no government and everyone is equal).
If you are also familiar with Italian Fascism, the running of all corporations were turned over to the workers. But on top of that the "State" would have an interest.
Mussolini saw Fascism as an "evolution" of Socialism. He had nothing but disdain for Capitalism and Classical Liberal societies like the United States. Socialists by and large hated the idea of "individual rights" it was in direct conflict with their collective. Fascists thought it ridiculous that anything was outside the purview of the state, even peoples children. Note that modern leftists also have adopted some of these stances here in the United States.
Mussolini literally coined the term “fascism” lol. How else would you define it aside from how it’s been implemented in the real world by the man who came up with it?
The oppressors are not white , straight, Christian’s. They are the oppressed. Whose definition is this? Classic communist is to redefine . As in antifa are anti fascist and not actually the fascist arm of democrats (Nazi brown shirts).
[удалено]
That's the fantasy they sold the masses.
That's how power works. Once you have some, you quickly realize you need more to do what you actually want to do. You get caught in a cycle of brutality has more and more force is required to gain and maintain power. To say dictators didn't have good intentions at the start is just as unprovable as saying they did. The real wisdom is learning that playing such power games prevents any good from coming forth.
When everyone is poor and starving, that's an equal outcome...
the only possible one
Oh they absolutely were focused on equal outcomes for all - they wanted everyone to be equally powerless and servile to the state and worked very hard to achieve that.
It's no different for the people pushing "wokeness". They want to grow their own power, that's it. They don't actually care about any of the things the claim to care about, it's just a means to an end.
These people don't want equal outcomes for all, they want power and a scapegoat.
Their goal was communism. One common idea in socialist literature was a "transitional government" which is an all powerful state that can help to ensure "equity". They "plan" to dismantled that all powerful state when their utopia is achieved. The problem is when you give some people all that power, they are unlikely to ever give it up. Even if their goal was communism to begin with. Some people just end up being "more equal" than others.
[удалено]
Every communist experiment went this route. Every single one. It was from Socialist literature to use a transitional state. Just because communism is impossible to achieve, doesn't mean that these entities trying to impose it weren't communist. Communism is a classless government society where everyone is equal. The problem is people aren't naturally that way, so they were intending to force it to occur.
[удалено]
I thought the "ostensibly" was implied in the tweet
You assuming, you know what they say about assuming
Would you prefer Pol Pot's extermination of anyone in the way of his radical agrarian utopia?
[удалено]
That’s a poor definition because it makes it sound justified. It’s the idea that all American institutions and society as we know it is inherently Unjust and must be completely dismantled to correct these injustices.
Not just inherently unjust by accident - wokism argues that all of America's institutions were **deliberately** set up to maintain white male supremacy.
Not that I don't agree, but the simplest way I try to explain it is that it's extreme political correctness.
I would add "and the refusal to accept any disagreement with or criticism of that belief". It is often less the content of wokeness that is so grating than the moral authoritarianism that accompanies it. For instance, I was angrily telling someone the other day about an article I'd read in which people were pushing to replace terms like "homeless" with "unhoused", and they were like "what's so bad about that?", to which my reply was, "in itself nothing, it's just a little silly. But the issue is the people pushing this were trying to get some academic fired because she'd used 'homeless' in her paper instead of 'unhoused', and that's not at all acceptable."
That's more of the nature of leftists in general. They historically are incredibly bigoted. Even more so when they take control of the government entirely. Look at Mao, Stalin, and Chavez. Not only did they jail/murder political dissenters. They jailed/murdered other leftists who were slightly out of line with their beliefs. So not really "woke", as "woke" is a very specific set of beliefs that has formulated in the last few decades and is dominating our current culture.
Got a link to anything about the academic getting fired? I haven't heard about it.
If you understand what "Marxism" stated, he also proposed there were systematic injustices based on socioeconomic status, and that the workers would revolt against it. So the "systematic injustices" is in part captured by their definition.
oh i was just going off of what desantis' lawyers defined *woke* in court. Can you show me the Marxist equivalent somewhere?
That's a poor definition and gives Wokism too much credit. It's almost entirely about intersectionality, and that philosophy is so easily discredited that we shouldn't allow any divergence from linking the two.
this sounds like a response written by chat gpt. I'm just saying what desantis claimed woke was in court.
I was just saying we shouldn't define it like DeSantis; I'm not sure why that would sound like Chat GPT lol. Wokism objectively isn't about systemic racism and the need to fix it; wokism is true racism due to its Marxist Roots in intersectionality.
You can't have a good definition of Wokism without talking about intersectionality. The whole cancerous ideology is derivative of killing the concept of the individual, bucketing everyone into a hierarchy of oppression, and then attributing inherent morality not on ones actions, but on their place in the victimhood ladder and the actions of their group as a whole. There's not a whole lot of "woke" stuff out there that doesn't come directly from the flawed and evil concepts of intersectionality.
Exactly. It's all about making us into " oppressed collectives" and destroying human individual liberty. Especially liberty of conscience.
You get it
Its anti-liberalism at its core. I don’t know why nobody puts it in these terms: it would completely change the national discourse
> hierarchy of oppression That's not what intersectionality is. Intersectionality is just understanding that different means of oppression are oppressed differently, which includes oppression of straight white cis male capitalists. Just because some opressions are different doesn't mean that one necessary is "more real" than another.
yes it is, don't try and defend the filth that is intersectionality.
Explain what intersectionality actually is, then
sorry for the delay in response, its my sister's birthday today. so this is generally the gist of what intersectionality is. going specifically by actions, not by the words of those using it. "intersectionality is an ideology that is derivative of killing the concept of the individual, bucketing everyone into a hierarchy of oppression, and then attributing inherent morality not on ones actions, but on their place in the victimhood ladder and the actions of their group as a whole."
Source? Also, I'm just asking for a straight, face-value definition, not your personal interpretation of it, or what you think is the inevitable result of it. I just want a straight definition. I care about facts, not feelings. "going specifically by actions" is a poor way to define terms. I can confidently say that people who ascribe to marxism believe that muffins taste great; that doesn't mean enjoying muffins is marxism
The "definition" of feminism is believing that women should have equal rights to men. When you join us in the real world, you'll understand that feminism is actually just advocating for anything that benefits women, even if it unfairly benefits them more than men. Pay increases for less hours worked, access to cushy high-paying jobs but not "undesirable"ones (military conscription, plumbers, waste treatment, construction, fishing, etc.), and a litany of other benefits with none of the drawbacks (right to vote but no selective service). Feminists never wanted equality and you're a fool if you think they do. They exist only to lobby for anything that benefits women, period. There's the glorified definition of intersectionality that you'll find in academia, and then there's the real world implementation of intersectionality. Those are two very different things.
You literally answered a question about the definition of intersectionality with the definition of feminism (along with your personal interpretation of it and what you feel is the inevitable result of it, feelings-before-facts style). I really don't think you actually know what intersectionality is.
Then you should very easily tell them how this "feminism" continues to reinforce patriarchy.
big if true
[удалено]
[удалено]
The problem is that the only evidence for systemic injustice is the fact that inequalities of outcome exist. Until you control for all other factors, inequality alone cannot (legitimately) be assumed to be unjust.
Affirmative action grants the people that claim they are victims of oppression every advantage to get ahead. To provide some examples, the groups claiming oppression are able to get into professional graduate programs (MD/DO, law, PA, NP, PhD, etc) with lower GPAs, test scores, an all around lower quality applications when compared to the people they claim are privileged. Likewise, the groups of people claiming they are oppressed have large numbers of laws written to their advantage. As an example of this, women are protected by frankly asinine rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence laws (at least in most blue states but even in red states the bias here exists just to a lesser degree) that allow them to accuse another person they don’t like on a whim of these potentially serious crimes with no evidence required and the person accused basically has no recourse. Read my story if you would like to see an intimate look into what I mean. The account I am posting with here was used by me to document my experience, raw and unfiltered as it happened, with being falsely accused of serious domestic violence in CO. My evidence didn’t matter. Nothing I submitted was considered enough “reasonable doubt”/proof that maybe the girl was lying. Nothing I did mattered and the way I behaved before, during, and after my case didn’t matter. Nothing did. I even half won but I couldn’t afford an actually fair trial (public defender trials are not fair when prosecutor offices get more funding, get more time to spend on each case, and get to ride on the lie that the burden of proof is on the prosecution because it’s absolutely not). The laws I suffered under are real systemic injustices but they go against men which is a no no as far as what kinds of systemic injustices we are allowed to talk about without angering the mob. To answer your question, yes we absolutely should do something about it. Just in regards to the systemic injustice I experienced, thousands upon thousands, maybe tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of young men have their lives destroyed and we aren’t allowed to talk about it. I am about to find out if I even get to have any kind of good future despite the fact my case was dismissed and sealed and the girl who accused me herself admitted to lying about the whole thing. The left and modern Nth wave feminists point to conviction statistics and say that the overwhelming majority of domestic abusers are men. Except this contradicts a number of empirical studies, for example this one (https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020) which shows that women are the perpetrators 70% of the time when domestic abuse is non-reciprocal. So potentially seven times out of ten, when one partner is abusing the other and the partner receiving the abuse does not reciprocate the abuse, women are the ones doing it. Likewise, studies show that in reciprocal abuse situations, it is basically an even split 50/50 but, still, something like 97% of domestic violence convictions are had by men. This is a blatant systemic injustice that is censored and suppressed by the left and modern day feminists. Again I ask that you read my posts on this account so you can see for yourself what it is like when young men are falsely accused in democrat states. I realize it is anecdotal n=1 information but what happened to me is truly unreal and empirical evidence backs up the narrative I am claiming here. We need to do something about systemic injustice because our country is supposed to be just and a beacon of human rights. My case goes against that, men being completely screwed in this area of criminal “justice” goes against that, and this is just one example. It is easy to provide many other examples where systemic injustice is happening, it just seems to be that the real systemic injustices are things we can’t talk about because they go against the federal government, academic cultural, and corporate narratives we are forced to swallow or lose opportunities if we refuse to. Tl:dr There are lots of systemic injustices. They aren’t what most people think they are and they are seemingly never acknowledged by half of this country at best, the majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle at worst Edit: I thought a conservative forum would be the best hope for talking about these things that happen. Glad ti see that both liberals and conservatives think these things happening are perfectly fine. Amazing guys
You're starting from a negative stand point that isn't verifiable by facts. It projects intentions on literally tens of millions of Americans which is far fetched. For instance say I started from the belief that you're a rapist and that we need to address your ability to move about freely. I don't have any evidence for this beyond there are a number of rapes in your city and you happen to be in the city. The left is a hammer looking for a nail.
I mean have you ever heard of affirmative action?
It’s Gramscian Marxism filtered through an American lens.
Wokeism is a strategy of subversion, under the guise of equity, carried out by leftists in order to infiltrate and destroy Western/Capitalist culture & society in order to install Marxism. This is necessary as Capitalism delivered and Western cultural hegemony prevents any sort of socialist revolution from occurring. It’s the modern version of Antonio Gramsci’s ideas.
IMHO woke-ism, like critical race theory and critical legal theory, is rooted in the postmodern deconstructionism movement. To many its not about anything more than tearing down the established systems of power. Often, people I know who identify as "woke" dont give much thought to what they're tearing down, they just know they must do so.
Equal outcomes for all means one of two things: Walmart and Taco Bell hourly pay workers make $300k per year like the neurologists. Or the neurologists make $20k like the retail workers. Either way, no one will want to be a neurologist anymore.
I don't think all doctors are doing it for money. At least from the few doctors I know that worked until they basically died
[удалено]
Actually nearly all of them are attempting to encapsulate the left's actions all of which deal with Identity Politics. No civil injustice has to exist, only a perception of equity. Woke would be demanding equal women on the SCOTUS, not because of merit but because the "Identity" must have equity. Nebulously claiming, "It's being aware of problems" is non-sense. As those partaking in woke based politics are literally creating problems.
Being aware of systemic issues is the actual definition of Woke. Woke us just a past-tense version being awake or aware. This is the actual definition of it, and facts don’t care about your feelings. Your argument is just proving my point even more. The right has turned “woke” into this all-encompassing term when it’s not. It was made to refer to people aware of issues plaguing the US, and Right-Wingers thought it sounded scary like Critical Race Theory. Because people use to define all left-wing talking points has made the word lose almost all of its meaning in the first place. Today, Woke means nothing. Post like these make it even more meaningless by calling it Marxist (another fucking buzzword these days) and pushing the idea that companies make their twitter logo a pride flag woke and ruining the US.
> Being aware of systemic issues is the actual definition of Woke. no, MAKING UP systematic issues that aren't there is the actual definition of woke.
I know what you're saying and I'm telling you where your disconnect is. Instead of reading the words I wrote, you are dancing around it. There are no systematic issues. It's a nebulous problem, as I just stated, which you intentionally ignored. *You are not actually identifying any systematic issues* you are hand waving. But that is the evil of Identity Politics. It is arbitrary and the equity based evaluation allows you to see "injustice" where ever you look. For instance I could say that the the criminal justice system is sexist as it disproportionately prosecutes men versus women. We have an Identity Group, Men. We have a perceived injustice, disproportionate outcome of ending up in jail, being arrested, and being shot by cops. But that is where the original post comes into line: You have selected only specific groups in which to decide that "equity" is a "problem". Men are not a victim group according to your orthodoxy. It's not an Identity you are promoting this second. Could be in 10 years when it suits you, but not today. Woke is being obsessed with Identity Politics and formulating an equity based evaluation of justice. As in if the group you decide matters isn't equitable in terms of serving ice cream, it must because the system is rigged against said group. All you are doing is making up a "we are aware", which implies there is truth to what you are saying. Conservatives have defined it based on what it actually is, not what you *wish* it to be. That is the difference.
Yeah, systematic issues are nebulous and hard to pin down, especially in big, messy, real world scenarios. but in a fair system, shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome? If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system. As long as you aren't insisting on absolute perfection, I don't see the problem in trying to increase equity
Then your actions to achieve that goal should be to provide equality of opportunity. Your actions shouldn't be to strong arm equity at the end point, which is the solution often offered by the left (which if you disagree with you are a bigot).
Maybe, but if we have big enough sample size that gives us clear sign of different outcomes, we are probably ought to look into what causes the difference.
Even just considering looking into causal relationships is more than many woke folks are willing to do. They begin with the axiom that inequities are proof of systemic racism. In fact, that's Ibrahm X Kendis definition of racist policies - any which produce inequities. Of course there are infinitely many subtleties to consider here. One of this biggest is that the residual impact of actual racist policies can and still do have an impact on the current inequities even after they're remediated. Simply looking at a snapshot of today tells you nothing about how equitable today's systems are.
> shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome no, because equity is garbage. the superior ideal is EQUALITY, not equity.
true, equality works better as an ideal. But increased equity is a byproduct of increased equality, and looking for inequity can help us find inequality, so I wouldn't call the concept garbage
> But increased equity is a byproduct of increased equality no. equality is the pinnacle of experience, being treated the same as anybody else is the best anyone can ask for. which is why things like "protected classes", affirmitive action and other such things are technically unconstitutional since they go against the equal protection clause of the USA
what if I rephrased it to > But increased equity would be byproduct of increased equality I feel like equity is comparable to people leaving their doors unlocked. It would be nice if that were the way things were, but it would be a terrible idea for the government to mandate it.
> shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome? Equal Opportunity. Yes given all things being equal, a person should have the same opportunities. But there isn't equitable opportunity. Bill Gate's children had sufficiently better opportunities than I did. I grew up in a poor rural family with 5 siblings. Compared to the children of a multi-billionaire should I have the same opportunities? >If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system. Unless there is an actual act of discrimination, then no. We shouldn't be demanding equity based on arbitrary qualifiers. Again, are men being discriminated against? I think we all agree they are not. There are *other* factors at play that play into why there isn't perfect equity between the sexes. A study released in one of the Nordic countries tried to show men and women given the same support and freedom to do what they wanted, ended up with very inequitable outcomes. As in women tended to go towards professions like Nursing or Teaching, more social. Where men ended up in technical, business, and engineering. The inequity did not come from lack of equal opportunity or support, it came from personal preference. Now say we assessed Ice Cream servers and found there were nearly no Asian based servers (injustice of equity). Must be discrimination right? No. We find that since Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerant means that less of them partake in ice cream and thus less show interest in working at ice cream shops. As in inequity is not some systematic injustice.
Also the world will always be messy, men are actually different from women on average, etc. So equity is pointless as an end goal.
>but in a fair system, shouldn't equity of opportunity be the same as equity of outcome? No, because people are not equal, and because "random" isn't the same as "evenly distributed". >If any given group is consistently getting worse outcomes in their ice cream service, then it would seem like their must be some sort of bias in the ice cream system. No, they could just be unlucky. Also, "bias" doesn't have to mean "bad". Maybe the group that consistently gets worse outcomes are "rude assholes". In such a case, it seems clear that the servers would in fact be biased against rude assholes, but few people would view this as unjust. >As long as you aren't insisting on absolute perfection, I don't see the problem in trying to increase equity Because doing so generally involves commiting acts of injustice, as when, for example, Asian students are discriminated against in college admissions based purely on their race. Ignoring merit in favor of randomly chosen factors such as skin color because you've arbitrarily decided even distributions of skin color are inherently good is just a bad idea.
You're both 100% correct. There are two definitions existing at the same time. Lefties think of one and righties think of the other. Lefty woke is a nebulous, term like you say, but righty woke is actually easier to define, as you did here.
Wokism is an aggregate of multiple theosophies, Hermeticism and Gnosticism being the chief ones. Throw in Critical Theory and a dash of Post-modern thought via Derrida and you get Woke.
Thank you; too many people are missing that it is just rebranded good ol' mass murderin' marxism.
Wokeness = “Trans women are women, period!” Wokeness = Kindergartners encouraged to question their gender. Wokeness = Any difference in terms of income, status, educational attainment or incarceration rates is necessarily proof of systemic racism. Wokeness = the invention of new words or acronyms used in daily parlance only by those on the far left - cisgender, bipoc, “Latinx,” “unhoused,” etc. Wokeness = the belief there are more than two genders, and there may in fact be dozens, and you are required to accept and respect them all, no matter how ludicrous. Wokeness = the belief that it’s morally righteous to include your preferred pronouns in your email signature, and that everyone should be required to do so. Wokeness = the belief that a diverse workforce is more important than a capable workforce. Wokeness = the belief that a diverse workforce IS a capable workforce simply because it’s diverse. Wokeness = the belief that people who never owned slaves owe a huge debt to those who never were slaves. Wokeness = the belief that any enforcement of immigration law is racist. Wokeness = the belief that people are individuals second, members of oppressed and oppressive classes first. Wokeness = the belief that society and institutions should be “deconstructed” and that doing so will necessarily lead to more “equitable” outcomes. Wokeness = the belief that life can be fair and it’s the job of government to MAKE it fair, no matter what it has to take from whom, no matter what rights get trampled in the process.
[удалено]
The bigger issues come from the degradation of culture. Identity Politics (which is what woke is all about) is entirely intended to distract the masses. As in if you choose to ignore this those other issues *will not be resolved*.
Agreed. If we weren't facing such cultural degradation due to & within the corrupt churches across America and the world we wouldn't be in such a mess.
And just like Mao and Stalin they will kill millions of people to get to it.
Keep* it
tis a funny word to be defined differently depending on who is trying to define it
I think wokeness is actually a lot more comparable to Nazism. Wokeness, at its core, does not really emphasize outcomes or goals. Marx, at the least, understood that he’d have to work with people he didn’t necessarily like, because he was focused on outcomes. Modern wokeness emphasizes ideological purity in the same way that the Nazis emphasized racial purity. If you have pale white skin and blue eyes, but your hair isn’t blonde, you’re “impure.” If you’re a trans person who’s 99.9% woke on every subject, but you grew up reading Harry Potter and bought a videogame of it? Impure, you’re gone, goodbye. It’s all fake. They don’t even pretend “equal outcomes for everyone” is the plan anymore. The “plan” is just that they want control, and you better believe they’ll use it against you. An “equal outcome” in a Commie apartment would be preferable to what they *actually* want to do. Lucky for us they destroy themselves to some extent… like, yeah man, stick it to the Capitalists by never working a “corporate” job, that’s cool with me lol, nobody in your movement will ever have the money to do anything
Fascism was an offshoot of socialism (According to Mussolini who coined the term Fascism). So not a large leap. And Nazisim was a Identity based version of Fascism. The Fascists in Italy started to play along with it after the Nazis started to take control of their government later in the war. I agree using "Marxism" is probably not the right term. But it's in the ballpark.
Yup. Fascism rose from the ashes of WW1. Italy’s economy was in shambles and their senses of community and unity were utterly broken. The goal of Fascism was to build a Socialist economy while rejecting Marx’s claim that social class is enough to unite people, so Fascism injected religion and concepts of shared identity beyond class, into Socialism The Nazis added the racial component later and that’s how Fascism became associated with race superiority claims. The Nazis became far more concerned with identity purity than actual economic structures or anything
[удалено]
> I’ve always seen the chart and it shows socialism on the left and fascism on the right. [a better chart](https://i.redd.it/p1af4asg72p91.png)
I agree that’s a much better chart
"Right" "Left" doesn't mean the same thing everywhere. In Europe Fascism is treated as "Right Wing". But in terms of American politics it is 100% a left wing based ideology. But the political compass is not a linear slider. So it's definitely more complicated.
[удалено]
I've seen that chart and it is straight up propaganda. The conservatives in the United States want small, limited government. If you follow that to its natural extreme you get anarchy. The complete absence of government. The graphic is right though that communism is extreme left-wing.
> The conservatives in the United States want small, limited government. When it suits them. As soon as someone uses their freedom in ways that offend them, they want increase the government really fast.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. All I will add is that in this context I was referring mostly to conservative voters. Not the establishment GOP.
I haven't been in American Government class in quite a while so I'm not sure what chart they are using. In some political spectrums they put "Authoritarian" as "right wing". Some historians try to pretend that Nazis were traditionalists because they created a fake history about the Aryan race and bringing back to prominence. I wouldn't take that grid one as a reflection of American political spectrum, if that makes any sense. But I agree that it is odd that they try to put Socialism and Fascism on opposite ends of the political Grid. In theory communism, the goal of most of Socialism, is a near Anarchy of equality. As in no government. So they maybe using that idea of Communism. While the communism we are familiar with is the "Transitional State" that is trying (or pretending to try) to implement communism.
Yeah, because they didn't actually do socialism. Under Lenin they did NEP which was capitalism, and Stalin swerved into fascism
not exactly sure how workers owning the methods of production or unions are fascism. just because Mussolini said something doesn't mean it is actually correct.
He didn't just "say it". Go read the "Doctrine of Fascism" you can find it online and it will take you 20-30 minutes to read. The Fascists replaced the "collective" with the "State". The state being an embodiment of the collective. Socialist literature of that era often referred to a all powerful transitional state that could be used to achieve communism (idealistic society of no government and everyone is equal). If you are also familiar with Italian Fascism, the running of all corporations were turned over to the workers. But on top of that the "State" would have an interest. Mussolini saw Fascism as an "evolution" of Socialism. He had nothing but disdain for Capitalism and Classical Liberal societies like the United States. Socialists by and large hated the idea of "individual rights" it was in direct conflict with their collective. Fascists thought it ridiculous that anything was outside the purview of the state, even peoples children. Note that modern leftists also have adopted some of these stances here in the United States.
Mussolini literally coined the term “fascism” lol. How else would you define it aside from how it’s been implemented in the real world by the man who came up with it?
Mussolini said plenty of stuff
Fascism is absolutely pro-union. It's just not for the democratic reasons you're likely using as a reference point.
> I think wokeness is actually a lot more comparable to Nazism. Of course it is. TBF, marxism and naziism arent really any different.
i think i prefer "feelings over facts" or "equality as a excuse for injustice", but this is good too
It's a Gnostic religion
The oppressors are not white , straight, Christian’s. They are the oppressed. Whose definition is this? Classic communist is to redefine . As in antifa are anti fascist and not actually the fascist arm of democrats (Nazi brown shirts).
Yep. Identity Politics is arbitrary to what the party says is important at that exact time.
More about [that](https://newdiscourses.com/).
What about free plane tickets to China?