Excellent response to both his first more poignant question and indeed to his second more petulant question. I’m glad to see someone, in a civil way, reject Peterson’s nonsense claims that we need the god delusion in order to live free of the woke delusion.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . . https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
Does it? There are plenty of countries which have been significantly less religious than North America for decades and they’ve managed to survive quite well without either delusion. There’s a certain parochialism in Peterson’s perspective, frankly.
It’s also worth noting that the ‘woke delusion’ (a horrible concoction of neo-Marxist ideas) really developed and matured in the still deeply religious United States before being exported to the heathen countries.
Which ones? Seriously, here in rather secularised Western Europe, wokeness may not be quite as advanced as it is in the US, but it's not that far off. There is no place in (Western) Europe that is "without either delusion".
In places like Japan, which culturally seem better able to resist woke, I believe there is still a very strong religious element to society (even though not Christian of course).
The problem with "woke" is that it's adherents simply care more, like religious people, about their beliefs, than the general secular liberal public does about secular liberalism. We're already seeing younger generations of Westerners easily swayed into denouncing the idea of free speech.
And the woke delusion may have developed in the "deeply religious" US, but it developed in the non-religious parts of it: universities.
It might be "weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews OF the Frankfurt School". There is no "Jewish conspiracy". Plenty of Jews are not fans of the Frankfurt School and the feces that came from it. Myself included.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
You can say that you don't need God, but you do need right and wrong, which is what God represents. On this you should make common cause with the religious; the idea that right and wrong exist as objective standards outside of people's subjective preferences. Otherwise, you might as well pretend men can be women, because why not? If right and wrong are all just a matter of opinion either way.
God might be one representation of someone's set of rights and wrongs, but you certainly don't need a God to learn the difference between them. Teaching that God is the only representation of right and wrong is nothing but blatant indoctrination.
True- but each individual already picks a dogma (consciously or not) - because we all worship in some form. Consciously people pray to the traditional mystical forms with hundreds of years of ethical teachings OR the unconscious modern version of worshiping the self which centers on gaining prestige, power, wealth, beauty, youth in a solitary, soul crushing quest for completeness.
I hear you, but it sounds like an over generalization to me. I don't pray for any traditional mystical forms, nor do I worship even subconsciously myself or any of the things you list, as far as I can tell anyway. I've always been a believer that community comes before individual liberty, with the old adage "a rising tide lifts all boats" applying.
That said, I agree that the megaphones of western cultures, particularly the capitalists, do place far too much emphasis on those selfish pursuits.
Touch wood, I've avoided falling into that trap. Others are free to rate me on the rubrics of prestige, power, wealth and beauty, but I refuse to reciprocate. This also explains why I bristle when people place their supposedly superior "religious" values above common sense and logic.
God represents the rejection of nihilism, moral relativism, etc., and the affirmation that right and wrong exist. If right/wrong do not exist in an objective sense, then morality itself is fake and everyone should just do whatever they want, only power matters, etc.
You can sit here and say you "don't need God to know right and wrong" but the real world disagrees with you. It isn't a coincidence that all the people opposed to objective morality are hardcore atheists. God is the best way, or at least one of the best, for most people to internalize objective morality. It's been around forever and popped up organically across multiple cultures that never had any contact with each other, proving its evolutionary utility.
You can say you found a better way to do it, but I'd like to see the evidence if so. What the real world seems to show is that if you focus on rejecting God and degrading religion as badmeanevilwrongstupid, people predictably fall into moral decay and end up pursuing all sorts of harmful nonsense in their attempt to find meaning somewhere else.
You are confusing "moral" right or wrong versus "factual" right or wrong. That's the problem with using words where they don't fit. Moral right or wrong is pretty subjective except that atheists realise (as does the rest of the world) that everyone (all cultures) believes in common set of ethics which we can define as shared morality.
Gender is not part of this moral right/wrong. That's a matter of objective fact/truth. It can be proven under a microscope (if I were to simply put it). We can totally hold morality as subjective and still still say there is objective truth to the gender claim. Nobody is claiming it to be morally right or wrong (we aren't religious). We are only stating the scientific fact of genders.
Morals represent religion. Facts represent science. Both are required for humans to succeed and excel in our earthly domain. If you have a scientist who makes up facts to support his hypothesis (lying is a violation of the ten commandments), such as climate change, what morally objective facts have you proven? None! Morals are not subjective and they have not evolved over time. Killing someone today without cause is just as immoral as killing someone 3600 years ago. Morals are objective truths that have existed infinitely in the past and will exist infinitely into the future without change. And where do they come from? They come from a higher power and apply to humans. The lower animals have no need for morals. They live by the natural law exclusively and have no need for the divine law. XX is female and XY is male. This is a scientific fact and an objective truth. One confronts this truth by use of the book of morality. And remember, morality equals immortality.
Acceptance of transgenderism is 100% a moral question. Whether to even point out to the transgenders that they are delusional in the first place is a moral issue. Should you try to correct them, or let them indulge in whatever it is they're doing? There is no moral neutrality on the issue, as even the stance of "leave them alone and let them be" remains an affirmative belief in what you should do about the situation.
And all of politics, most of life really, is like this. The idea of navigating the world as if morality were truly subjective is utterly absurd. By this logic, we would have to accept that a random jungle tribe with the custom of raping little girls is doing nothing wrong because, well, that's just like, their subjective morality, dude.
I think the objectivity of values derived from God definitely serve as a protection from the woke nonsense and from a totalitarian state. I don't have respect for any authoritarian state but I do love and respect my God who tells me I was created in his image, not in the states. And also that theft is wrong. Theft wasn't wrong in soviet Russia, which is why they destroyed churches during that period. I am convinced Christianity in the west is what still keeps some of us sane.
God isn’t an illusion, but a poor conception of a higher power based on dogmatic beliefs can be very harmful and an impediment to understanding our Universe.
On the other end, science is incapable of answering many of our most fundamental burning questions, and so insisting on appealing to it to do so is equally harmful to understanding our Universe imo. There are entire realms of the mind, consciousness, perception and our relationship to the Universe and one another that science just cannot answer.
What happened before the Big Bang? What happens to our soul/consciousness upon death?
Trying to define creation and the great mysterious eternal with numbers and formulas will cause you to miss a significant and glorious part of the human experience, the part that makes living worthwhile
Yea.. Only till science answers those questions (like it did the big bang and evolution which were also part of those deep burning questions at one point in time not too long ago) and we move the goalposts to stick to our ancestors beliefs in some form of misplaced loyalty..
Science answered intermediate questions of how to we get from ..a->b
Science doesn’t and cannot answer how to get to a. Thus, there is a need for another method of inquiry and knowledge acquisition for this other, non-material realm.
Except science is at least trying to answer certain questions, while many religions simply concoct their own answers.
Is the continued search not better than having various groups of people across the globe getting together at various points in the past to literally make up stories that work for them and then teach younger generations that having a story -- regardless of its plausibility and dubious rule structure -- is better than not having any answer at all?
I’m not an advocate for the sort of dogmatic religious practice that closes the mind to scientific advances in the material world. But I also think some people have dogmatic views about science and close their mind to the immaterial world, which science isn’t equipped to explore.
Do you not see a logical problem there? Everything came from nothing in a split second and that is supposed to be a scientifically rational position that actually explains where we come from? Pretty far fetched that we rely on conservation of energy as a fundamental principle…..except during the event of creation when we look the other way?
Every version of the Big Bang Theory starts with “The Universe started as…”
Welp, how the heck did the Universe just up and start itself? That seems a “belief” just as much as any religious creation story.
I don’t believe Dawkins has disproven the need for a god lest the masses pick a much worse one. Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s culpable for the result, or should do anything other pursue the truth.
God has very important properties: Instills stability in the universe, ensures we live in best of all possible realities, explains the subjective nature of intelligence, and judges fairly and ultimately, as well as ensures that the good aspects of us remain after we die.
Natural selection barely explains why animals are fit to their environment, but does not generate traits, nor explain the complexity of life, nor does it explain (most of all) the ultimate stability of reality.
(Multiverse hypotheses do not work to explain stability because any moment that exists is eternally stable... there can be no "survival of the most stable realities" when ultimacy is needed, and hence metaphysical principles).
Yet you no doubt would prefer the Christian “delusion” over the woke dogma destroying science. Give yourselves a pat on the back, delusional secularists. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Enjoy wokeism.
Woke has become a meaningless word because it can mean whatever the speaker wants or whatever suits the argument of the moment. Woke does NOT consist of just people who support trans rights, or even just those who support them unthinkingly. It is like saying that because one Christian Sect believes in end times, that we must condemn all Christians, even those who stress and live by the tenet "love thy neighbor"
Woke is in the broad sense the idea that we should respect people unless they act to lose that respect; the main way they lose the respect is by hypocrisy. It is worst when they ACT in contradiction of the beliefs they claim. The end-times folks do not love their neighbors when they support political policies that will wipe out millions who don't believe in the end times. The rapist using "her" doesn't respect his/her fellow women nor is rape (as described) an action that women believe in.
I am not a Christian. I do believe in respect for people who look at the teachings of their religion --all of them--to guide their lives and at the same time not force their beliefs on others. I have no respect at all for hypocrites.
"Woke" as used by people who choose to identify that way doesn't fit the idea of dogmatic beliefs at all. What you are describing is a perversion of "woke" and is no more to be respected than a perversion of any other belief.
I would note that the trans rapist being held in a woman's prison was particularly overblown by Dawkins in making a rather hysterical case against "woke-ism". Isla Bryson was in a women's prison for only a short time, while the system figured out what to do with him/her. She/he was kept from the general prison population before being transferred to a men's prison where she/he is also kept away from the general population as is apparently the norm for any type of sex offender. Yes, trying to navigate the world of transgender people is hard and we're just beginning to grapple with it. But the case of Isla Bryson was resolved per policy with safety prevailing. It's hardly a sign of rampant perversion of any norm. One swallow does not make a summer.
Absolutely incorrect. Nicola Sturgeon resigned at the apogee of her popularity and power because of the Isla Bryson debacle. “The system” didn’t figure out a damn thing! People DEMANDED they remove that monster from the women’s unit. Bryson is only one of DOZENS of cases of murderous, sexually violent men claiming to be women specifically to gain access to women and women’s protected spaces all over the western world! You, my dear, sound very much like a warm, safe, full-bellied Christian who looks around her safe, little corner of the world and sees how loving, generous, and good god is to his children. That is, perfectly oblivious to the horrors and daily misery of the lives of many around the globe. SMH.
So, Mr Single-neuron. If it's dozens, then, as the women's prison population in the US numbers 170000, this makes the probability of a women encountering a man about 1 in 10000, which makes prison really safe in regard to assaults by trans people. On the other hand, the the rate of sexual assaults in women's prisons (women on women) is 200 per 1000, or 1 in 5. So, this makes trans women 2000 times safer than women.
You're probably not an arsehole, but you struggle with using neurons. I can use 'men' any way I want, because it is not defined in an essential way, but by the circumstances.
Thus, so the mentally weak don't have trouble comprehending, I use the term they want to use, so there isn't confusion, even though it is offensive to call trans-women 'men'.
Hello Andrew, you are using very different measurements. I dispute the numbers you provide, however for the sake of argument let’s accept them. You compare the number of predators per population to numbers of victims per population.
They both are a measure of the likelihood of being assaulted by a man or woman. Being assaulted by a trans woman is very very unlikely. Being assaulted by another woman is very very likely.
Andrew, as Nick explains, you’re conflating per stirpes & pari passu. MTF trans individuals have a significantly higher instance of assault and sexual assault against women in female prisons (as well as outside them) than do women against women. Just as males do within ANY given population. It’s just one more real-world example of the empirical evidence of differences between men and women. That’s not to say all males are violent but, overall, males are more violent than females. Nothing about transitioning changes this.
Wrong, Woke is defined as being awake to structural injustices perpetuated by oppressor identity classes against opressed identity classes. It rejects individual identity and narrows the world down to collective consciousness, whether that is your race, gender, sexual attraction (etc). The left can't come up with new ideas, they just rebrand old ideas such as marxism and post modernism and pretend that woke is really about compassion and justice. When anyone with half a brain really know it's about cultural revolution and seizing control of power.
And this is why not everyone on the left is woke. Because woke people are the ones who will label even people on the left as right wing once we disagree with them based on scientific facts. JK Rowling was absolutely correct and she is left to center. And so is Richard Dawkins. It's this insanity that makes up a woke person.
Re: Basically anyone you identify as "The left" is woke.
That's analogous to saying that anyone on the right is a fascist. It's dichotomous thinking. What about progressive-conservatives that believe in equal rights for everyone in society?
It's only the super 'far-left' that typically ascribe as 'woke'. Most left-wing people loathe this stuff, including myself. I've been left-leaning my entire life and have only ever voted for left-wing parties.
Your last sentence sounds like the typical right-wing media narrative, with their replacement theories and all that nonsense. Minorities and alternative lifestyle seekers aren't looking for power and revolution, they're looking for nothing more than basic respect and equality as outline quite clearly in the US Constitution, the country where this whole woke thing started.
Every-time Marxism is applied, it fails. The insanity of Marxism is the arrogance of it's believers that think that if only they were the ones to apply it's ideology, that it would be successful. Wokeism was born out of the ashes of all the failed marxist experiments of the 20th century.
Yes, now let's look at the state of societies currently under Marxist governments, compared to those under forms of secular liberal democracy and free markets.
Jordan Peterson has defined Woke rather differently. In his opinion, the Woke movement consists of people who have been led to the conclusion that everything in the world is simply an expression of power dynamics and that therefore facts, reality, truth and common sense are an annoying irrelevance, and that the concept of "values" is meaningless.
It had a meaning once, an actual originalist meaning that an originalist jurist would be not able to countenance. It meant alert to racial injustice and later more broadly to social injustice in general. What one DID with that awareness was up to you, and could lead to dogmatism or alternatively empathy or at the least to respect for the experiences of others as being something they really did experience
This was anathema to those living in an alternate reality where the founding fathers told us conclusively all that all was right in the most perfect of worlds, where Jim Crow was just something designed to make kiddies feel bad and slavery taught useful skills that could be used when benevolent whites finally decided to end slavery. (See Candace Owens and her video lesson put on by Prager[not]U.). So they turned it into a swear word just as they did Socialist. American Exceptionalism must not be challenged.
Those of us who came of age in the 60s know this was bullshit. We have chosen the path of empathy and a continuation of the struggle to reach continually TOWARDS those founding ideals. And, at the risk of cultural appropriation, we assert “say it loud. I’m woke and I’m proud”. And up yours, those who think that your sneering has any effect on our own ideals.
We don’t claim to be socialists because we also know the original meaning of THAT word and it doesn’t fit anything current in American life nor a very plausible future .
As a professional woman in a heavily male sector, I spent most of my professional life being told (by men) that I was just imagining my own experiences. “Women are liberated, you got into law school, all is now perfect” it was mansplained. Yeah, empathy runs deep for all others who are sick of being told that you can’t POSSIBLY be experiencing discrimination.
LOL woke activists exist and are pretty nasty and dubious. I'll give you a lived example of it. There was a news item few months back where a passenger in an airplane supposedly peed on a female and then after a few months the female launched a complaint to the airline and now cops were looking for the man. I argued, we don't know the facts or the story while women and "woke" men went ahead crucifying the man's image and calling him and all men rapists. I was merely echoing their tone of speaking and was not out of line while firmly holding to values I know to be true : don't harm people's reputations unless you know something to be definitively true. Nobody did, but they still argued like what happened towards the end of the metoo movement.
A mere 10 minutes later my business partner gets an email that I am a mysoginist, bullying women of social media accompanied by screenshots of some of these partial responses that make me look bad. This female Susan requested my partner to fire me (a co-founder :D) based in this drivel. What she didn't know was she was reaching out to my wife who is my co founder in our company (ghast a mysoginist with a female partner with a 50/50 split in the business). She looked and laughed at the email. I ended up showing her the entire exchange which made her laugh even more. Long story short, a few days later it was proven the elderly man was simply pissed drunk and couldn't see or know where he was and the elderly woman had been apologised to and she had forgiven him and had only put in a complaint to get some money from the airline and there was absolutely no case to be made on him. The woman herself apologised for the trouble as she was egged on by relatives when there was no need. It was vindication.
I had looked up the email address and it was a fake one created for this sort of snitching. This woke Karen had gone through layers of my social media to find out what company I run, who my partner was and her private email address and had a draft ready to send. It's a mafia. So spare me the gullible nonsense that they don't exist.
These WOKE ACTIVISTS are nuts and don't mind ruining lives on mere disagreements. If you think they don't exist, it's only because you haven't crossed them. Good luck as they get more and more absurd there will be a point every single person will cross them.
Here is how Bill Maher defines woke: He said that a true liberal which we are running out of, would look at San Francisco today and commence to make sure that they could help the people who are living in boxes and crapping on the street. They would have ways to address it that were effective and not absurd. The Woke religion sees the problem and offers no help but to say things like "They should be able to rob stores and crap on the street. They have rights! Cops should not enforce laws on these "disenfranchised" people who are here because of systemic racism or other ridiculous made up reason.
They are blind to human nature. Classic liberals would give them tough love because they want to actually help, not virtue signal to get warm fuzzy fuzzy feelings about "sticking up" for these people. They are a cult of no common sense, fake empathy and heaps of magical thinking.
if Maher says that he's an abject idiot. Ever tried to raise taxes to cover the expense of the homeless problem? Affordable housing is just the tip of the problem. Factor in mental health care and drug rehab --those ways to help people that woke people DO have--and watch the population proudly excoriating the woke pull in their wallets and screech Socialism.
There is one word for what "woke" and "socialism" has become:
"Woke" started out during the racial protests of the 60s, with the phrase "Stay woke." Which meant at the time "keep your head on swivel and watch the people in your surroundings, because cops are busting heads. It eventually moved to mean "keep your conciousness raised" while you keep your head on a swivel, and at this point has been co-opted by people who want a convienient label for the "social justice warrior."
As much as I have disdain for the insanity of Critical Marxism and it's sub theories, I"ve never heard any of the people who spout the beliefs use it, except ironically. (Maybe my data set is too small, so I'm willing to reconsider, with references.) That doesn't mean they don't subscribe to the religion - they just don't call it what we call it.
"...The term then gained particular significance and tied itself to the contemporary Social Justice movement in the mid 2010s as it became an activist watchword of the Black Lives Matter movement. There, say following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the phrase “stay woke” took on the very specific meaning of being aware of the reality (according to critical race Theory) of systemic racism in American society that activists blamed for being at the root of the incident. This has, in turn, led to the term being nearly synonymous with having a critical consciousness as provided through critical race Theory, although it has been appropriated through intersectional thought to apply to other issues of identity relevant to postcolonial Theory, queer Theory, feminism, and so on. It has since expanded and memefied further and is now seen from the outside as being wholly synonymous with having been converted to a Social Justice critical consciousness. As such, “wokeness” often refers to both critical Social Justice doctrine and the state of having accepted it."
The origins were way earlier than that. But why then link it to a bunch of theories as if they were to BLAME for black people, or women, or gays happening to notice that they are, in their own lived experience, facing discrimination? What theory do you have for DENYING those lived experiences of systemic discrimination?
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
That is a good summary of the points Jordan often makes. Although I suppose it is a fraction of the woke community. When you listen to Peterson you can easily forget the good ideals due to his linear crusade against who he calls 'neo-marxists'. He does make some important observations about these neo-marxists. I think he is saying that the majority of those in Marxist politys believed in the common cause and ideals, just as the woke do. However as he would put it the 'tyrannical' minority subverts this. It is used, he thinks as a lever. So in order for this idea to work, most of the woke would indeed be genuine and good yet the movement overall to be tyrannical and oppressive, similar to communism/marxism. It is not an unreasonable observation. The solution being more conventional religion as Richard points out and others here, is somewhat nonsensical IMHO :)
A further point to note is that while the tyrannical minority certainly pulls the majority in a particular direction, the majority also affects the direction of the tyrannical minority. Take the analogy of a stand-up comedian. The comedian works the audience, but the audience reaction also affects the direction the comedian takes his show in. He reacts to what works and what doesn't. A similar push-pull dance exists in the woke community too. (You could argue that this was also the dynamic at play in Nazi Germany). By the way, this is not a Petersonian concept; I first saw it articulated by the Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How long are we still going to argue the "good ideals" of Marxism, or even revolutionary Communism, when we know what these "good ideals" amount to in practice. Every, single, time.
The Nazi's had "good ideals", from their perspective. So do Islamic terrorists. Everyone thinks that what they are doing is "the right thing" or they wouldn't be doing it.
How many times must we see the "good ideals" of the radical left turn into oppression, authoritarianism and mass murder before we start understanding that "good ideals" is a meaningless phrase. Who decided that these were "good ideals" in the first place? As if we are all presupposed to be in agreement that the kind of "equality" the (radical) left fights for is a "good ideal". We are not.
It's maddening, this presupposition that whatever ideals the left has are somehow inherently "good". This is the whole "well Communism is good in theory, but was never implemented "right" argument. I hear even completely run of the mill social democrat left wingers (who've never read a history book) around me say stuff like that as if it's common knowledge. Absolutely infuriating.
If we want to discern some "good ideals" that have actually been proven to bring relative happiness, progress and prosperity to human society we should look towards secular humanism, science and the pursuit of objective knowledge, free market capitalism and liberal democracy. Anywhere but Marxism or it's various offshoots.
That is going a bit too far but your point is valid. I had better book my place in the woke concentration camp for gender is fluid deniers now and get a good bunk... In seriousness though easier to get on with wokies compared to islamic extremists, for example. I think their ideology is objectively better than some of the comparisons you make. It's about tolerance and inclusion to a greater extent.
Nonsense. Woke has specific meanings and origins in (marxist) Critical Social Justice theory. It is based on specific presuppositions about society (not based in objective facts), and a specific lens through which to observe, and more importantly, to change it (through social activism).
It is NOT just "the idea that we should respect people unless they act to lose that respect". (that sounds more like simple "live and let live" humanism/individualism)
That's about as dishonest as saying "Islam is the religion of peace".
What does it even mean, that we "should respect people". Who decides when someone "loses respect"? Doesn't that presuppose certain parameters of behaviour that are worthy or unworthy of "respect"? And if so, where do these come from? Obviously they are not written in the sky somewhere.
"Woke's" origins are in fact from African-American Vernacular English and the term has been used since the 30's to mean "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination." Leadbelly used it, for heaven's sake. This was all years before assorted "Theory" was a gleam in the eye of academics trying to figure out how to say something "new" to get published.
I was in grad school in English just before "Theory" hit. I switched to law school (where, btw, the discipline in English I was taught--close reading of literature for its internal consistency and how the work was put together, i.e. New Criticism--turned out to be spectacularly useful in parsing case law) Later I was curious and looked into it--and found a few sensible ideas encased in impenetrable jargon. Thank goodness it no longer seems to be the norm in the study of literature. Whether it is in other "theories" I don't know, though I can see that anyone wading through the jargon might end up with a sense of obfuscated "elitism."
That doesn't mean that people who actually like theory taking up the idea are the origins of it, nor that the good ideas hiding under the blather are wrong. Just because some people have embraced, or perverted the ideas (I HATE "trigger warnings and such, btw) doesn't mean the underlying meaning is wrong. The attacks on the term are actually attacks on the underlying ideas--like the fact (sorry "color-blinders") that systemic discrimination is in fact part of our non-yet ideal society.
As an example, I stopped listening to NPR years ago due to the endless, monotonous, drumbeat of identity politics. Wokeness is identarian monomania. That is not the exception, but the rule.
I have never been able to figure out what "identity politics" means to the right. It appears to be "anyone who has concerns about those folks with characteristics I don't share." Don't we ALL involve our politics in some ways with our identities? Isn't "I'm a true red-white-and blue patriot loving the flag and out to own the libs and thus voting for trump" an example?
Which identity? Woman? Retired Lawyer? History major who has kept up the interest throughout life? Science fiction fan? Former teacher at both high school and University Level? Grandmother of kids who will have to deal with climate change way more than I ever will? Person who came of age in the 60s and was active in the Civil Rights Movement and Earth Day and opposed to the failed war in Vietnam? Person who bought a miniscule amount of Amazon stock because her daughter worked there in the 90s, and who totally lucked out on that one? Mother of a software engineer? Believer in the separation of church and state? Disliker of people who make vast generalizations about anything and are are unable to distinguish between things that are superficially similar but in fact are really different?
At any point one of those identities may come to the fore. And if a candidate appears to support any one of those, or myriads more, I will speak out in favor and thus appear to be--on different forums-- a feminist, an opponent of wars of aggression; a proponent of reasoned argument; a defender of some, though not all, of Amazon's policies; a supporter of a the teaching civics, of diverse literature, of history warts and all; a believer that all people are created equal but not all people have the opportunity to live up to their potential for reasons beyond their control.
I think I can leave monomania to others, thanks. Those who prefer labels to thought.
Listen to NPR and see if you can go for more than 5 minutes without having any subject whatsoever linked in some way to race and/or sexual orientation. Doesn't matter * whose * race or sexual orientation it is. And if 'monomania' isn't the exact right word for such an unrelenting focus, then I'll gladly substitute 'religion.' Whatever you call it, I'm hardly the only person who has been driven away from the left by it.
Into the arms of trump, he of the "Mexico is sending criminals, they're sending rapists?" Or DeSantos, of the "teaching about Jim Crow might hurt kids' feelings?" Hope you find it a safe haven.
Actually, NPR has a lot of stuff that isn't about race or sexual orientation. But it is a brutal fact that issues of race have for centuries and even more now been central to politics in America.
Sexual Orientation is another matter, having been manufactured by the Right as an issue--and in face of that onslaught, yes, it needs to be dealt with. I was six when Christine Jorgenson became the first US transgender female. If there was thundering from the pulpits about it, it wasn't from any pulpit I had to listen to. The reaction until just recently was "gee, that's weird, wouldn't do that myself." In fact, I doubt NPR talked about it much at ALL before the Christian Right joined with trump to make it OK to be racist and homophobic.
"Critical Race Theory" was an abstruse grad level theory until the right decided it was a good reason to whitewash history. I will bet you big money that you never HEARD of it until the last few years. Racism has always been an issue, but denying it actually still operates in our society is a monomania to end all monomanias.
You seem to be taking the catbox approach to the central issues of our time. Scratch the sand hard enough and it will all be neatly covered over.
Ah, so it IS "....even more now ... central to politics in America." But that's okay, since such a monomaniacal focus is good and trooo. And if I don't agree, then I'm a Trumpist.
Excellent response to both his first more poignant question and indeed to his second more petulant question. I’m glad to see someone, in a civil way, reject Peterson’s nonsense claims that we need the god delusion in order to live free of the woke delusion.
Are Peterson's claims actually nonsense, though? Reality, unfortunately, seems to suggest otherwise...
Yes I think we can categorically state that if Peterson moves his mouth it's mostly nonsense coming out. And if it's not nonsense it's self serving.
Juden Peterstein is a Zionist Canadian drug addict . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Juden Peterstein . . .
And they are also words to talk about modern politics. Two things can be true at once.
Fuck you and your Jewish god . . . you lying Jew whore . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
.
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . . https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
Does it? There are plenty of countries which have been significantly less religious than North America for decades and they’ve managed to survive quite well without either delusion. There’s a certain parochialism in Peterson’s perspective, frankly.
It’s also worth noting that the ‘woke delusion’ (a horrible concoction of neo-Marxist ideas) really developed and matured in the still deeply religious United States before being exported to the heathen countries.
"Plenty of countries"
Which ones? Seriously, here in rather secularised Western Europe, wokeness may not be quite as advanced as it is in the US, but it's not that far off. There is no place in (Western) Europe that is "without either delusion".
In places like Japan, which culturally seem better able to resist woke, I believe there is still a very strong religious element to society (even though not Christian of course).
The problem with "woke" is that it's adherents simply care more, like religious people, about their beliefs, than the general secular liberal public does about secular liberalism. We're already seeing younger generations of Westerners easily swayed into denouncing the idea of free speech.
And the woke delusion may have developed in the "deeply religious" US, but it developed in the non-religious parts of it: universities.
Fuck you and your Jewish god . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
From the article you have posted it reads, “Never mind that ‘communism’ is a Jewish ideology.”
This is fundamentally wrong.
Fuck you and your Jewish god . . . Juden Peterstein is a Zionist Canadian drug addict.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
It doesn't really matter when or where it was developed. What matters is when and where it took root in the general population...
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
It might be "weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews OF the Frankfurt School". There is no "Jewish conspiracy". Plenty of Jews are not fans of the Frankfurt School and the feces that came from it. Myself included.
Fuck you and your Jewish god . . .
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
You can say that you don't need God, but you do need right and wrong, which is what God represents. On this you should make common cause with the religious; the idea that right and wrong exist as objective standards outside of people's subjective preferences. Otherwise, you might as well pretend men can be women, because why not? If right and wrong are all just a matter of opinion either way.
God might be one representation of someone's set of rights and wrongs, but you certainly don't need a God to learn the difference between them. Teaching that God is the only representation of right and wrong is nothing but blatant indoctrination.
True- but each individual already picks a dogma (consciously or not) - because we all worship in some form. Consciously people pray to the traditional mystical forms with hundreds of years of ethical teachings OR the unconscious modern version of worshiping the self which centers on gaining prestige, power, wealth, beauty, youth in a solitary, soul crushing quest for completeness.
I hear you, but it sounds like an over generalization to me. I don't pray for any traditional mystical forms, nor do I worship even subconsciously myself or any of the things you list, as far as I can tell anyway. I've always been a believer that community comes before individual liberty, with the old adage "a rising tide lifts all boats" applying.
That said, I agree that the megaphones of western cultures, particularly the capitalists, do place far too much emphasis on those selfish pursuits.
Touch wood, I've avoided falling into that trap. Others are free to rate me on the rubrics of prestige, power, wealth and beauty, but I refuse to reciprocate. This also explains why I bristle when people place their supposedly superior "religious" values above common sense and logic.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
God represents the rejection of nihilism, moral relativism, etc., and the affirmation that right and wrong exist. If right/wrong do not exist in an objective sense, then morality itself is fake and everyone should just do whatever they want, only power matters, etc.
You can sit here and say you "don't need God to know right and wrong" but the real world disagrees with you. It isn't a coincidence that all the people opposed to objective morality are hardcore atheists. God is the best way, or at least one of the best, for most people to internalize objective morality. It's been around forever and popped up organically across multiple cultures that never had any contact with each other, proving its evolutionary utility.
You can say you found a better way to do it, but I'd like to see the evidence if so. What the real world seems to show is that if you focus on rejecting God and degrading religion as badmeanevilwrongstupid, people predictably fall into moral decay and end up pursuing all sorts of harmful nonsense in their attempt to find meaning somewhere else.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR JEWISH GOD . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
You are confusing "moral" right or wrong versus "factual" right or wrong. That's the problem with using words where they don't fit. Moral right or wrong is pretty subjective except that atheists realise (as does the rest of the world) that everyone (all cultures) believes in common set of ethics which we can define as shared morality.
Gender is not part of this moral right/wrong. That's a matter of objective fact/truth. It can be proven under a microscope (if I were to simply put it). We can totally hold morality as subjective and still still say there is objective truth to the gender claim. Nobody is claiming it to be morally right or wrong (we aren't religious). We are only stating the scientific fact of genders.
What are these “universal morals” you espouse are held by “all cultures”?
That’s a bold claim
Evolution is heterosexual.
Religious faggots are insane.
Morals represent religion. Facts represent science. Both are required for humans to succeed and excel in our earthly domain. If you have a scientist who makes up facts to support his hypothesis (lying is a violation of the ten commandments), such as climate change, what morally objective facts have you proven? None! Morals are not subjective and they have not evolved over time. Killing someone today without cause is just as immoral as killing someone 3600 years ago. Morals are objective truths that have existed infinitely in the past and will exist infinitely into the future without change. And where do they come from? They come from a higher power and apply to humans. The lower animals have no need for morals. They live by the natural law exclusively and have no need for the divine law. XX is female and XY is male. This is a scientific fact and an objective truth. One confronts this truth by use of the book of morality. And remember, morality equals immortality.
Evolution is heterosexual.
The Jewish god is a fraud.
Monogamy is a religious tenet.
Religious faggots are insane.
Acceptance of transgenderism is 100% a moral question. Whether to even point out to the transgenders that they are delusional in the first place is a moral issue. Should you try to correct them, or let them indulge in whatever it is they're doing? There is no moral neutrality on the issue, as even the stance of "leave them alone and let them be" remains an affirmative belief in what you should do about the situation.
And all of politics, most of life really, is like this. The idea of navigating the world as if morality were truly subjective is utterly absurd. By this logic, we would have to accept that a random jungle tribe with the custom of raping little girls is doing nothing wrong because, well, that's just like, their subjective morality, dude.
Xxy anyone … rants miss details, details sink rants
EVOLUTION IS HETEROSEXUAL, YOU STUPID FAGGOT.
FUCK YOU AND YOUR JEWISH GOD . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Evolution is heterosexual . . . religious faggots are insane . . .
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
I think the objectivity of values derived from God definitely serve as a protection from the woke nonsense and from a totalitarian state. I don't have respect for any authoritarian state but I do love and respect my God who tells me I was created in his image, not in the states. And also that theft is wrong. Theft wasn't wrong in soviet Russia, which is why they destroyed churches during that period. I am convinced Christianity in the west is what still keeps some of us sane.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Hmmm
God isn’t an illusion, but a poor conception of a higher power based on dogmatic beliefs can be very harmful and an impediment to understanding our Universe.
On the other end, science is incapable of answering many of our most fundamental burning questions, and so insisting on appealing to it to do so is equally harmful to understanding our Universe imo. There are entire realms of the mind, consciousness, perception and our relationship to the Universe and one another that science just cannot answer.
What happened before the Big Bang? What happens to our soul/consciousness upon death?
Trying to define creation and the great mysterious eternal with numbers and formulas will cause you to miss a significant and glorious part of the human experience, the part that makes living worthwhile
Cheers
https://youtu.be/qX8j9TE7P38
Yea.. Only till science answers those questions (like it did the big bang and evolution which were also part of those deep burning questions at one point in time not too long ago) and we move the goalposts to stick to our ancestors beliefs in some form of misplaced loyalty..
I disagree.
Science answered intermediate questions of how to we get from ..a->b
Science doesn’t and cannot answer how to get to a. Thus, there is a need for another method of inquiry and knowledge acquisition for this other, non-material realm.
Except science is at least trying to answer certain questions, while many religions simply concoct their own answers.
Is the continued search not better than having various groups of people across the globe getting together at various points in the past to literally make up stories that work for them and then teach younger generations that having a story -- regardless of its plausibility and dubious rule structure -- is better than not having any answer at all?
I’m not an advocate for the sort of dogmatic religious practice that closes the mind to scientific advances in the material world. But I also think some people have dogmatic views about science and close their mind to the immaterial world, which science isn’t equipped to explore.
Cheers
Evolution is heterosexual.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
My understanding is that time started with the Big Bang. So there is no “before”.
Do you not see a logical problem there? Everything came from nothing in a split second and that is supposed to be a scientifically rational position that actually explains where we come from? Pretty far fetched that we rely on conservation of energy as a fundamental principle…..except during the event of creation when we look the other way?
Every version of the Big Bang Theory starts with “The Universe started as…”
Welp, how the heck did the Universe just up and start itself? That seems a “belief” just as much as any religious creation story.
Big Bang = Immaculate Conception
I don’t believe Dawkins has disproven the need for a god lest the masses pick a much worse one. Of course, that doesn’t mean he’s culpable for the result, or should do anything other pursue the truth.
I don’t think he was really trying to. He said he understands the point- just he personally and others can’t get on board.
God has very important properties: Instills stability in the universe, ensures we live in best of all possible realities, explains the subjective nature of intelligence, and judges fairly and ultimately, as well as ensures that the good aspects of us remain after we die.
Natural selection barely explains why animals are fit to their environment, but does not generate traits, nor explain the complexity of life, nor does it explain (most of all) the ultimate stability of reality.
(Multiverse hypotheses do not work to explain stability because any moment that exists is eternally stable... there can be no "survival of the most stable realities" when ultimacy is needed, and hence metaphysical principles).
Thankfully proof of God is found in the CTMU.
Heinrich Himmler on How Bolshevik Christianity Spreads Homosexuality and Hatred of Women . . .
http://www.renegadetribune.com/himmler-on-how-bolshevik-christianity-spreads-homosexuality-and-hatred-of-women/
The only “delusions” are the degenerative perceptions, not those that developed for thousands of years.
Yet you no doubt would prefer the Christian “delusion” over the woke dogma destroying science. Give yourselves a pat on the back, delusional secularists. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. Enjoy wokeism.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Woke has become a meaningless word because it can mean whatever the speaker wants or whatever suits the argument of the moment. Woke does NOT consist of just people who support trans rights, or even just those who support them unthinkingly. It is like saying that because one Christian Sect believes in end times, that we must condemn all Christians, even those who stress and live by the tenet "love thy neighbor"
Woke is in the broad sense the idea that we should respect people unless they act to lose that respect; the main way they lose the respect is by hypocrisy. It is worst when they ACT in contradiction of the beliefs they claim. The end-times folks do not love their neighbors when they support political policies that will wipe out millions who don't believe in the end times. The rapist using "her" doesn't respect his/her fellow women nor is rape (as described) an action that women believe in.
I am not a Christian. I do believe in respect for people who look at the teachings of their religion --all of them--to guide their lives and at the same time not force their beliefs on others. I have no respect at all for hypocrites.
"Woke" as used by people who choose to identify that way doesn't fit the idea of dogmatic beliefs at all. What you are describing is a perversion of "woke" and is no more to be respected than a perversion of any other belief.
I would note that the trans rapist being held in a woman's prison was particularly overblown by Dawkins in making a rather hysterical case against "woke-ism". Isla Bryson was in a women's prison for only a short time, while the system figured out what to do with him/her. She/he was kept from the general prison population before being transferred to a men's prison where she/he is also kept away from the general population as is apparently the norm for any type of sex offender. Yes, trying to navigate the world of transgender people is hard and we're just beginning to grapple with it. But the case of Isla Bryson was resolved per policy with safety prevailing. It's hardly a sign of rampant perversion of any norm. One swallow does not make a summer.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
Absolutely incorrect. Nicola Sturgeon resigned at the apogee of her popularity and power because of the Isla Bryson debacle. “The system” didn’t figure out a damn thing! People DEMANDED they remove that monster from the women’s unit. Bryson is only one of DOZENS of cases of murderous, sexually violent men claiming to be women specifically to gain access to women and women’s protected spaces all over the western world! You, my dear, sound very much like a warm, safe, full-bellied Christian who looks around her safe, little corner of the world and sees how loving, generous, and good god is to his children. That is, perfectly oblivious to the horrors and daily misery of the lives of many around the globe. SMH.
So, Mr Single-neuron. If it's dozens, then, as the women's prison population in the US numbers 170000, this makes the probability of a women encountering a man about 1 in 10000, which makes prison really safe in regard to assaults by trans people. On the other hand, the the rate of sexual assaults in women's prisons (women on women) is 200 per 1000, or 1 in 5. So, this makes trans women 2000 times safer than women.
Next time, engage a second neuron.
You kinda seem like an asshole, but at least you acknowledge that "trans-women" are actually men ;)
You're probably not an arsehole, but you struggle with using neurons. I can use 'men' any way I want, because it is not defined in an essential way, but by the circumstances.
Thus, so the mentally weak don't have trouble comprehending, I use the term they want to use, so there isn't confusion, even though it is offensive to call trans-women 'men'.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Hello Andrew, you are using very different measurements. I dispute the numbers you provide, however for the sake of argument let’s accept them. You compare the number of predators per population to numbers of victims per population.
They both are a measure of the likelihood of being assaulted by a man or woman. Being assaulted by a trans woman is very very unlikely. Being assaulted by another woman is very very likely.
Andrew, as Nick explains, you’re conflating per stirpes & pari passu. MTF trans individuals have a significantly higher instance of assault and sexual assault against women in female prisons (as well as outside them) than do women against women. Just as males do within ANY given population. It’s just one more real-world example of the empirical evidence of differences between men and women. That’s not to say all males are violent but, overall, males are more violent than females. Nothing about transitioning changes this.
Just say 'they', dude.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Woke is a meaningless term as it is undefined and also have exactly no one identifying as woke in any meaningful sense.
It's an invective used by right wing nut cases to describe anything they don't like.
Wrong, Woke is defined as being awake to structural injustices perpetuated by oppressor identity classes against opressed identity classes. It rejects individual identity and narrows the world down to collective consciousness, whether that is your race, gender, sexual attraction (etc). The left can't come up with new ideas, they just rebrand old ideas such as marxism and post modernism and pretend that woke is really about compassion and justice. When anyone with half a brain really know it's about cultural revolution and seizing control of power.
That's an impressive definition.
Basically anyone you identify as "The left" is woke.
There are plenty on the left who aren't woke, classical liberals just like Richard Dawkins are still on the left.
I'm not so sure. He's looking more and more like J. K. Rowling.
He is a biologist. He understands the fact that sex is binary. Are you a science denier?
Who is also an outspoken leftist.
And this is why not everyone on the left is woke. Because woke people are the ones who will label even people on the left as right wing once we disagree with them based on scientific facts. JK Rowling was absolutely correct and she is left to center. And so is Richard Dawkins. It's this insanity that makes up a woke person.
Re: Basically anyone you identify as "The left" is woke.
That's analogous to saying that anyone on the right is a fascist. It's dichotomous thinking. What about progressive-conservatives that believe in equal rights for everyone in society?
It's only the super 'far-left' that typically ascribe as 'woke'. Most left-wing people loathe this stuff, including myself. I've been left-leaning my entire life and have only ever voted for left-wing parties.
Anyone on the right of the far-left, is by their definition a fascist.
It's even worse than calling everyone on the right a fascist. Because it no longer has a definition so anything under the sun is included.
Looks like my analogy went over your head. Oh well.
Good luck.
Your last sentence sounds like the typical right-wing media narrative, with their replacement theories and all that nonsense. Minorities and alternative lifestyle seekers aren't looking for power and revolution, they're looking for nothing more than basic respect and equality as outline quite clearly in the US Constitution, the country where this whole woke thing started.
Every-time Marxism is applied, it fails. The insanity of Marxism is the arrogance of it's believers that think that if only they were the ones to apply it's ideology, that it would be successful. Wokeism was born out of the ashes of all the failed marxist experiments of the 20th century.
Yes, now let's look at the state of societies currently under Marxist governments, compared to those under forms of secular liberal democracy and free markets.
Like CIS?
Jordan Peterson has defined Woke rather differently. In his opinion, the Woke movement consists of people who have been led to the conclusion that everything in the world is simply an expression of power dynamics and that therefore facts, reality, truth and common sense are an annoying irrelevance, and that the concept of "values" is meaningless.
well, each to his own, I guess. As I said, you can define "woke" to be pretty much anything you want, including a straw man.
The good thing about Peterson's formulation is that it maps very well to what we see from the Woke activists on a daily basis.
There are no woke activists. There are no people who prescribe to the term, at all.
It's a term made up by right wing nut cases to pile in everything they don't like.
It had a meaning once, an actual originalist meaning that an originalist jurist would be not able to countenance. It meant alert to racial injustice and later more broadly to social injustice in general. What one DID with that awareness was up to you, and could lead to dogmatism or alternatively empathy or at the least to respect for the experiences of others as being something they really did experience
This was anathema to those living in an alternate reality where the founding fathers told us conclusively all that all was right in the most perfect of worlds, where Jim Crow was just something designed to make kiddies feel bad and slavery taught useful skills that could be used when benevolent whites finally decided to end slavery. (See Candace Owens and her video lesson put on by Prager[not]U.). So they turned it into a swear word just as they did Socialist. American Exceptionalism must not be challenged.
Those of us who came of age in the 60s know this was bullshit. We have chosen the path of empathy and a continuation of the struggle to reach continually TOWARDS those founding ideals. And, at the risk of cultural appropriation, we assert “say it loud. I’m woke and I’m proud”. And up yours, those who think that your sneering has any effect on our own ideals.
We don’t claim to be socialists because we also know the original meaning of THAT word and it doesn’t fit anything current in American life nor a very plausible future .
As a professional woman in a heavily male sector, I spent most of my professional life being told (by men) that I was just imagining my own experiences. “Women are liberated, you got into law school, all is now perfect” it was mansplained. Yeah, empathy runs deep for all others who are sick of being told that you can’t POSSIBLY be experiencing discrimination.
LOL woke activists exist and are pretty nasty and dubious. I'll give you a lived example of it. There was a news item few months back where a passenger in an airplane supposedly peed on a female and then after a few months the female launched a complaint to the airline and now cops were looking for the man. I argued, we don't know the facts or the story while women and "woke" men went ahead crucifying the man's image and calling him and all men rapists. I was merely echoing their tone of speaking and was not out of line while firmly holding to values I know to be true : don't harm people's reputations unless you know something to be definitively true. Nobody did, but they still argued like what happened towards the end of the metoo movement.
A mere 10 minutes later my business partner gets an email that I am a mysoginist, bullying women of social media accompanied by screenshots of some of these partial responses that make me look bad. This female Susan requested my partner to fire me (a co-founder :D) based in this drivel. What she didn't know was she was reaching out to my wife who is my co founder in our company (ghast a mysoginist with a female partner with a 50/50 split in the business). She looked and laughed at the email. I ended up showing her the entire exchange which made her laugh even more. Long story short, a few days later it was proven the elderly man was simply pissed drunk and couldn't see or know where he was and the elderly woman had been apologised to and she had forgiven him and had only put in a complaint to get some money from the airline and there was absolutely no case to be made on him. The woman herself apologised for the trouble as she was egged on by relatives when there was no need. It was vindication.
I had looked up the email address and it was a fake one created for this sort of snitching. This woke Karen had gone through layers of my social media to find out what company I run, who my partner was and her private email address and had a draft ready to send. It's a mafia. So spare me the gullible nonsense that they don't exist.
These WOKE ACTIVISTS are nuts and don't mind ruining lives on mere disagreements. If you think they don't exist, it's only because you haven't crossed them. Good luck as they get more and more absurd there will be a point every single person will cross them.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Wow that is just an astounding anecdote about a woke Karen., lol.
Here is how Bill Maher defines woke: He said that a true liberal which we are running out of, would look at San Francisco today and commence to make sure that they could help the people who are living in boxes and crapping on the street. They would have ways to address it that were effective and not absurd. The Woke religion sees the problem and offers no help but to say things like "They should be able to rob stores and crap on the street. They have rights! Cops should not enforce laws on these "disenfranchised" people who are here because of systemic racism or other ridiculous made up reason.
They are blind to human nature. Classic liberals would give them tough love because they want to actually help, not virtue signal to get warm fuzzy fuzzy feelings about "sticking up" for these people. They are a cult of no common sense, fake empathy and heaps of magical thinking.
if Maher says that he's an abject idiot. Ever tried to raise taxes to cover the expense of the homeless problem? Affordable housing is just the tip of the problem. Factor in mental health care and drug rehab --those ways to help people that woke people DO have--and watch the population proudly excoriating the woke pull in their wallets and screech Socialism.
There is one word for what "woke" and "socialism" has become:
Newspeak.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Bill Maher is another old fart who has lost the plot.
He is applying woke as he sees fit.
"Woke" started out during the racial protests of the 60s, with the phrase "Stay woke." Which meant at the time "keep your head on swivel and watch the people in your surroundings, because cops are busting heads. It eventually moved to mean "keep your conciousness raised" while you keep your head on a swivel, and at this point has been co-opted by people who want a convienient label for the "social justice warrior."
As much as I have disdain for the insanity of Critical Marxism and it's sub theories, I"ve never heard any of the people who spout the beliefs use it, except ironically. (Maybe my data set is too small, so I'm willing to reconsider, with references.) That doesn't mean they don't subscribe to the religion - they just don't call it what we call it.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Why do you have disdain for Marxism?
So basically you reserve the right to call anyone woke even if they don't describe themselves that way.
How very convenient.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
While there may not be one clear "official" definition of "woke", I think this makes it's origins, and they way it's meaning has evolved pretty clear:
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-woke-wokeness/
"...The term then gained particular significance and tied itself to the contemporary Social Justice movement in the mid 2010s as it became an activist watchword of the Black Lives Matter movement. There, say following the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the phrase “stay woke” took on the very specific meaning of being aware of the reality (according to critical race Theory) of systemic racism in American society that activists blamed for being at the root of the incident. This has, in turn, led to the term being nearly synonymous with having a critical consciousness as provided through critical race Theory, although it has been appropriated through intersectional thought to apply to other issues of identity relevant to postcolonial Theory, queer Theory, feminism, and so on. It has since expanded and memefied further and is now seen from the outside as being wholly synonymous with having been converted to a Social Justice critical consciousness. As such, “wokeness” often refers to both critical Social Justice doctrine and the state of having accepted it."
The origins were way earlier than that. But why then link it to a bunch of theories as if they were to BLAME for black people, or women, or gays happening to notice that they are, in their own lived experience, facing discrimination? What theory do you have for DENYING those lived experiences of systemic discrimination?
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
The Frankfurt School adapted Marx’s theories on revolution to include Freud’s theory of the subconscious. The Cultural Marxists’ main focus was to reshape the subconscious of Western men and women and thus create new type of person: one who would react passively to provocations of all kinds . . .
https://nordicresistancemovement.org/what-is-cultural-marxism/
That is a good summary of the points Jordan often makes. Although I suppose it is a fraction of the woke community. When you listen to Peterson you can easily forget the good ideals due to his linear crusade against who he calls 'neo-marxists'. He does make some important observations about these neo-marxists. I think he is saying that the majority of those in Marxist politys believed in the common cause and ideals, just as the woke do. However as he would put it the 'tyrannical' minority subverts this. It is used, he thinks as a lever. So in order for this idea to work, most of the woke would indeed be genuine and good yet the movement overall to be tyrannical and oppressive, similar to communism/marxism. It is not an unreasonable observation. The solution being more conventional religion as Richard points out and others here, is somewhat nonsensical IMHO :)
A further point to note is that while the tyrannical minority certainly pulls the majority in a particular direction, the majority also affects the direction of the tyrannical minority. Take the analogy of a stand-up comedian. The comedian works the audience, but the audience reaction also affects the direction the comedian takes his show in. He reacts to what works and what doesn't. A similar push-pull dance exists in the woke community too. (You could argue that this was also the dynamic at play in Nazi Germany). By the way, this is not a Petersonian concept; I first saw it articulated by the Belgian psychologist Mattias Desmet.
Thanks
"...you can easily forget the good ideals..."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How long are we still going to argue the "good ideals" of Marxism, or even revolutionary Communism, when we know what these "good ideals" amount to in practice. Every, single, time.
The Nazi's had "good ideals", from their perspective. So do Islamic terrorists. Everyone thinks that what they are doing is "the right thing" or they wouldn't be doing it.
How many times must we see the "good ideals" of the radical left turn into oppression, authoritarianism and mass murder before we start understanding that "good ideals" is a meaningless phrase. Who decided that these were "good ideals" in the first place? As if we are all presupposed to be in agreement that the kind of "equality" the (radical) left fights for is a "good ideal". We are not.
It's maddening, this presupposition that whatever ideals the left has are somehow inherently "good". This is the whole "well Communism is good in theory, but was never implemented "right" argument. I hear even completely run of the mill social democrat left wingers (who've never read a history book) around me say stuff like that as if it's common knowledge. Absolutely infuriating.
If we want to discern some "good ideals" that have actually been proven to bring relative happiness, progress and prosperity to human society we should look towards secular humanism, science and the pursuit of objective knowledge, free market capitalism and liberal democracy. Anywhere but Marxism or it's various offshoots.
That is going a bit too far but your point is valid. I had better book my place in the woke concentration camp for gender is fluid deniers now and get a good bunk... In seriousness though easier to get on with wokies compared to islamic extremists, for example. I think their ideology is objectively better than some of the comparisons you make. It's about tolerance and inclusion to a greater extent.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
Nonsense. Woke has specific meanings and origins in (marxist) Critical Social Justice theory. It is based on specific presuppositions about society (not based in objective facts), and a specific lens through which to observe, and more importantly, to change it (through social activism).
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-woke-wokeness/
It is NOT just "the idea that we should respect people unless they act to lose that respect". (that sounds more like simple "live and let live" humanism/individualism)
That's about as dishonest as saying "Islam is the religion of peace".
What does it even mean, that we "should respect people". Who decides when someone "loses respect"? Doesn't that presuppose certain parameters of behaviour that are worthy or unworthy of "respect"? And if so, where do these come from? Obviously they are not written in the sky somewhere.
"Woke's" origins are in fact from African-American Vernacular English and the term has been used since the 30's to mean "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination." Leadbelly used it, for heaven's sake. This was all years before assorted "Theory" was a gleam in the eye of academics trying to figure out how to say something "new" to get published.
I was in grad school in English just before "Theory" hit. I switched to law school (where, btw, the discipline in English I was taught--close reading of literature for its internal consistency and how the work was put together, i.e. New Criticism--turned out to be spectacularly useful in parsing case law) Later I was curious and looked into it--and found a few sensible ideas encased in impenetrable jargon. Thank goodness it no longer seems to be the norm in the study of literature. Whether it is in other "theories" I don't know, though I can see that anyone wading through the jargon might end up with a sense of obfuscated "elitism."
That doesn't mean that people who actually like theory taking up the idea are the origins of it, nor that the good ideas hiding under the blather are wrong. Just because some people have embraced, or perverted the ideas (I HATE "trigger warnings and such, btw) doesn't mean the underlying meaning is wrong. The attacks on the term are actually attacks on the underlying ideas--like the fact (sorry "color-blinders") that systemic discrimination is in fact part of our non-yet ideal society.
“Woke,” “wokeism,” “wokeness,” etc., are weasel words used to hide the truth about the Jews and the Frankfurt School . . .
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/how-the-grift-right-gimps-for-the
As an example, I stopped listening to NPR years ago due to the endless, monotonous, drumbeat of identity politics. Wokeness is identarian monomania. That is not the exception, but the rule.
I have never been able to figure out what "identity politics" means to the right. It appears to be "anyone who has concerns about those folks with characteristics I don't share." Don't we ALL involve our politics in some ways with our identities? Isn't "I'm a true red-white-and blue patriot loving the flag and out to own the libs and thus voting for trump" an example?
Which identity? Woman? Retired Lawyer? History major who has kept up the interest throughout life? Science fiction fan? Former teacher at both high school and University Level? Grandmother of kids who will have to deal with climate change way more than I ever will? Person who came of age in the 60s and was active in the Civil Rights Movement and Earth Day and opposed to the failed war in Vietnam? Person who bought a miniscule amount of Amazon stock because her daughter worked there in the 90s, and who totally lucked out on that one? Mother of a software engineer? Believer in the separation of church and state? Disliker of people who make vast generalizations about anything and are are unable to distinguish between things that are superficially similar but in fact are really different?
At any point one of those identities may come to the fore. And if a candidate appears to support any one of those, or myriads more, I will speak out in favor and thus appear to be--on different forums-- a feminist, an opponent of wars of aggression; a proponent of reasoned argument; a defender of some, though not all, of Amazon's policies; a supporter of a the teaching civics, of diverse literature, of history warts and all; a believer that all people are created equal but not all people have the opportunity to live up to their potential for reasons beyond their control.
I think I can leave monomania to others, thanks. Those who prefer labels to thought.
Listen to NPR and see if you can go for more than 5 minutes without having any subject whatsoever linked in some way to race and/or sexual orientation. Doesn't matter * whose * race or sexual orientation it is. And if 'monomania' isn't the exact right word for such an unrelenting focus, then I'll gladly substitute 'religion.' Whatever you call it, I'm hardly the only person who has been driven away from the left by it.
Into the arms of trump, he of the "Mexico is sending criminals, they're sending rapists?" Or DeSantos, of the "teaching about Jim Crow might hurt kids' feelings?" Hope you find it a safe haven.
Actually, NPR has a lot of stuff that isn't about race or sexual orientation. But it is a brutal fact that issues of race have for centuries and even more now been central to politics in America.
Sexual Orientation is another matter, having been manufactured by the Right as an issue--and in face of that onslaught, yes, it needs to be dealt with. I was six when Christine Jorgenson became the first US transgender female. If there was thundering from the pulpits about it, it wasn't from any pulpit I had to listen to. The reaction until just recently was "gee, that's weird, wouldn't do that myself." In fact, I doubt NPR talked about it much at ALL before the Christian Right joined with trump to make it OK to be racist and homophobic.
"Critical Race Theory" was an abstruse grad level theory until the right decided it was a good reason to whitewash history. I will bet you big money that you never HEARD of it until the last few years. Racism has always been an issue, but denying it actually still operates in our society is a monomania to end all monomanias.
You seem to be taking the catbox approach to the central issues of our time. Scratch the sand hard enough and it will all be neatly covered over.
Ah, so it IS "....even more now ... central to politics in America." But that's okay, since such a monomaniacal focus is good and trooo. And if I don't agree, then I'm a Trumpist.
Not at all a religious attitude.