The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

It definitely does exist. Especially in the military, a primarily conservative culture. I wouldn't make that up if I didnt know there were people I work with that are pretty quiet liberals at work. 

 

Maybe it’s my O-3 bubble, but most people I work with where they make their political views not so subtle are actually liberals. 

[Pooter]

3 hours ago, Breckey said:

So just like Kaepernick.

The difference of course being that kaepernick signed a contract with his employer thereby agreeing to follow rules listed in things like the game operations manual and the players handbook. Then he violated those rules, went on a self-aggrandizing campaign against his employer, and drove a wedge into his team's cohesiveness.. all while his performance tanked and he blamed it on everyone except himself.  It's just such a mystery why current teams won't touch him with a 10 foot pole.

So yeah.. almost the same thing

[Breckey]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

Maybe it’s my O-3 bubble, but most people I work with where they make their political views not so subtle are actually liberals. 

I have experienced the opposite, especially during the last administration.

59 minutes ago, Pooter said:

The difference of course being that kaepernick signed a contract with his employer thereby agreeing to follow rules listed in things like the game operations manual and the players handbook.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the kneeling during the national anthem wasn't against any NFL rules until the following year. I agree on your other points. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Breckey

[Guardian]

Love how people ignore the people or cultures they offend by trying to bring light to something else. Does it matter that people were offended by kneeling at the national anthem? Nope. Only that a social justice warrior after his own publicity so he could try and be front page news again and find a starting spot and millions of dollars again. But wait. Nike paid him. All is well.

 

He, just like Labron James, are ignorant. Willfully so.

[busdriver]

Kaepernick was an employee that made public statements that pissed off the customers, who viewed his statements as offensive, who made noises that implied they would stop being customers.  That's it.  He certainly wasn't the first person to lose a job over that sequence of events, and it seems to have become quite common these days.

Just one more example of the mass hysteria afflicting our society.

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's not what the patriarchy is referring to. It's referring to our monkey roots where humans are primarily an alpha ape led society. In chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest cousins, clans are led by a single alpha male who takes exclusive access to resources (primarily good) and mating. They will keep a harem of 6-8 female apes. Male apes who are not the alpha though have a choice, they either leave the society and explore the jungle solo, significantly risky, or they remain with the tribe as a second class citizen. The alpha male will eat first, then the females, then the additional males. The additional males will never have access to mating. 

The concept of the patriarchy is that as society developed from ape man we inhereted these structures into our own structures which is evidences by genetic behavior and the behaviors of our cousins. A very few number of males became the patriarchy and began to establish systems that ensured they remain in power, i.e. feudalism, endowment, property laws. Women and men both become equally oppressed to keep the few alpha men in power. Actually quite fascinating stuff that explains a lot on gender differences like why men are expected to give their place on a life raft for women and children go this day. (By devalueing the cost of male life you reduce the probability of rivals) or how monogomy came to form (turns out in a society thousands of sexless men become quite restless and start to revolt).

Hence, I largely agree with you that the tale of human history is one of mutual suffering and cooperation. Doesn't mean a patriarchy doesn't exist though, and it's just not referring to you. The fact you are in the military, a predominantly male occupation with a historical expectation of risk, is evidence sir, that you are sadly not an alpha. In casual conversation you might bemoan that you are going to go to work for "the man" and you'd much like to stick it to "the man" but aren't really sure who this man is. Well, he is the patriarchy. 

So I mentioned earlier femenism is a largely nature vs nurture debate. The question is, do we still predominantly follow men in society because our genetic ape roots push us that direction, or do we primarily follow men because of thousands of generations of cultural institutionings? 

 

Edit: I should add too there is a significant difference between academic femenism and activist femenism. 

Another redefinition. Just keep confusing language until debate is no longer possible. 

 

You are using definitions for terms that were created after the fact. Academic gobbledegook that covers for the fact that the argument on its face is absurd.

 

The few kings of the world, who had it better than 99.999% of the remaining men on the planet, were matched by queens who had it 99.999% better than the very same peasant males. To imply that peasant women had a better than peasant men is to ignore history. It sucked, a lot, for everyone. But women largely avoided the horrors of war and industrial labor, whereas men were disposable throughout those periods.

 

Redefining evolutionary gender roles as the patriarchy does not make modern society a patriarchy. And you don't have to redefine reality to justify trying to make things better than they were yesterday. Redefining reality to create villains to further justify the agenda is immoral and counter productive. That is not directed at you specifically, btw.

Edited June 11, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[herkbier]

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's not what the patriarchy is referring to. It's referring to our monkey roots where humans are primarily an alpha ape led society. In chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest cousins, clans are led by a single alpha male who takes exclusive access to resources (primarily good) and mating. They will keep a harem of 6-8 female apes. Male apes who are not the alpha though have a choice, they either leave the society and explore the jungle solo, significantly risky, or they remain with the tribe as a second class citizen. The alpha male will eat first, then the females, then the additional males. The additional males will never have access to mating. 

The concept of the patriarchy is that as society developed from ape man we inhereted these structures into our own structures which is evidences by genetic behavior and the behaviors of our cousins. A very few number of males became the patriarchy and began to establish systems that ensured they remain in power, i.e. feudalism, endowment, property laws. Women and men both become equally oppressed to keep the few alpha men in power. Actually quite fascinating stuff that explains a lot on gender differences like why men are expected to give their place on a life raft for women and children go this day. (By devalueing the cost of male life you reduce the probability of rivals) or how monogomy came to form (turns out in a society thousands of sexless men become quite restless and start to revolt).

Hence, I largely agree with you that the tale of human history is one of mutual suffering and cooperation. Doesn't mean a patriarchy doesn't exist though, and it's just not referring to you. The fact you are in the military, a predominantly male occupation with a historical expectation of risk, is evidence sir, that you are sadly not an alpha. In casual conversation you might bemoan that you are going to go to work for "the man" and you'd much like to stick it to "the man" but aren't really sure who this man is. Well, he is the patriarchy. 

So I mentioned earlier femenism is a largely nature vs nurture debate. The question is, do we still predominantly follow men in society because our genetic ape roots push us that direction, or do we primarily follow men because of thousands of generations of cultural institutionings? 

 

Edit: I should add too there is a significant difference between academic femenism and activist femenism. 

Is this a troll account? Gen Chang?

You don’t seriously believe what you wrote do you?

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, herkbier said:

Is this a troll account? Gen Chang?

You don’t seriously believe what you wrote do you?

No troll account, and I'm not saying I subscribe to this stuff but I do understand it. Femenism is one of multiple schools used to describe phenomena in society. Strictly speaking I don't think I subscribe to femenism because femenist largely seem to advocate we are behaviorly conditioned and I think they under estimate the the role of biological conditioning. But yes, femenist have some strong arguments about some phenomena.

So how would you explain phenomena like the fact that a few male familial heads held the majority of power on the entire planet for nearly 6 centuries? How would you explain that we have certain biases about what roles women should have on society versus men? How would you explain that the value of male life seems to be lower than the value of female life? That men are expected to undertake more risky roles? How would explain how humans bacame monogomous when it's well known ancestrally we weren't? All of the above are observations. Femenism and concepts of patriarchy are just one attempt to explain them. 

[nsplayr]

5 hours ago, Guardian said:

He, just like Labron James, are ignorant. Willfully so.

I have to laugh man because you spelled King James' name wrong while calling someone else ignorant 😁

The fact that we're debating stuff like, "Is feminism bad?" and, "Is racism a problem in this country?" shows me just how much work there is left to be done.

I keep things real simple definitionally. To me, feminism is treating people equally regardless of their gender and racism is treating people differently because of their race. I am for the first one and against the second one; pretty god damned simple.

I realize there are entire PhD-granting academic fields and reams of literature further discussing and defining and parsing out these topics in great detail (i.e. I'm not "willfully ignorant" like whoever "Labron James" is), but for the purposes of daily life and talking to folks of all stripes, I think the simple definitions work just fine.

It's also pretty clear to me that despite most people personally professing to treat women and women equally and people of all races the same, that the proof is in the pudding. If you're unsure or skeptical of whether women and/or people of other races are treated differently than you and you are a white man, I'd encourage you to ask around.

Not to say that people can't or don't have different opinions; clearly many of y'all do.

[Lord Ratner]

43 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

 😁

The fact that we're debating stuff like, "Is feminism bad?" and, "Is racism a problem in this country?" shows me just how much work there is left to be done.

 

Neat. More strawman arguments.

I don't think a single person in this thread has made such simplified arguments, but your inability to interpret nuance explains your comically shallow responses.

 

I'd like to push back against calling FLEA a troll. He's engaging in a good faith debate, and what he's saying is subscribed to by many people in academia, politics, and they media. If he believes it, I think he's dead wrong, but not disingenuous.

[BashiChuni]

We are so woke

 

[Pooter]

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

That's not what the patriarchy is referring to. It's referring to our monkey roots where humans are primarily an alpha ape led society. In chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest cousins, clans are led by a single alpha male who takes exclusive access to resources (primarily good) and mating. They will keep a harem of 6-8 female apes. Male apes who are not the alpha though have a choice, they either leave the society and explore the jungle solo, significantly risky, or they remain with the tribe as a second class citizen. The alpha male will eat first, then the females, then the additional males. The additional males will never have access to mating. 

The concept of the patriarchy is that as society developed from ape man we inhereted these structures into our own structures which is evidences by genetic behavior and the behaviors of our cousins. A very few number of males became the patriarchy and began to establish systems that ensured they remain in power, i.e. feudalism, endowment, property laws.

This concept of "the patriarchy" is nowhere close to mainstream progressive thought on the subject and you know it. 

[FLEA]

3 minutes ago, Pooter said:

This concept of "the patriarchy" is nowhere close to mainstream progressive thought on the subject and you know it. 

I said clearly in my initial post there is a gap between social activist femenism and academic femenism. 

I don't think a huge portion of activist femenist really know their own school well. I do think they like to crop certain principles from the theory that support their belief they are still not treated equally in society. Activist femenist largely ignore male suffrage or deny it's a thing. I would say right there that demeans their true femenist credentials because and academic femenist would be interested in why men suffer differently than women. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is the activist femenist says women are not treated equally. The academic femenist says women are treated differently with no respect to equality. I'm closer to the later because I do believe both sexes are treated differently and suffer differently and I do think we can do a better job of easing that suffering in certain aspects of society. However, I question how much of that is biologically based. For instance, I don't think males are behaviorly programmed by society to be protective of women I believe it's instinctual because there is an evolutionary recognition that female survivability is more critical to reproduction/population sustainment than male survivability. I think we naturally value women's lives more because we recognize they are essential to childbearing.

The moral question is though, when the Titanic is sinking, is it still ethical to this day to declare women and children first? Whether it's biological or nurtured, should we treat actually women's lives as more important? 

The Red Pill is a good documentary on Netflix about men's suffrage if anyone is interested. 

[Pooter]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:The fact that we're debating stuff like, "Is feminism bad?" and, "Is racism a problem in this country?" shows me just how much work there is left to be done.

I keep things real simple definitionally. To me, feminism is treating people equally regardless of their gender and racism is treating people differently because of their race. I am for the first one and against the second one; pretty god damned simple.

Except it isn't that simple. At all.

Most people already believe exactly what you just said. But that's clearly not good enough, which is why we're forced to have this endless creep towards full wokeness. If it was as simple as treating everyone with respect and basic dignity we wouldn't have people suggesting slavery reparations, or that we should suspend due process to #believeallwomen, or that we abolish the police.  

[MilitaryToFinance]

16 hours ago, FLEA said:

... Activist femenist largely ignore male suffrage or deny it's a thing.

The Red Pill is a good documentary on Netflix about men's suffrage if anyone is interested. 

 

[Clark Griswold]

Why this madness is probably not going to end soon:

The Oberlin Mindset Has Spread to the Real World

Until we cut the Woke weed off at its roots (schools infiltrated with indoctrinators vs educators, especially at the universities), it's just going to get worse.

[Sua Sponte]

44 minutes ago, MilitaryToFinance said:

 

[Sim]

If only woke people would listen to this black person. Such a wonderful man. 

 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, MilitaryToFinance said:

You are right, that word confuses me sometimes because of its similarity to suffering. Thanks for the correction. 

[kaputt]

Statue of Ulysses S. Grant torn down in San Francisco. The man who won the Civil War for the Union, freed the only slave he ever owned, and was eulogized by Frederick Douglas. 

Our education system is a failure.

Also San Francisco is not America. 

[Sua Sponte]

39 minutes ago, kaputt said:

Statue of Ulysses S. Grant torn down in San Francisco. The man who won the Civil War for the Union, freed the only slave he ever owned, and was eulogized by Frederick Douglas. 

Our education system is a failure.

Also San Francisco is not America. 

The one I don't understand is the fact they tore down Cervantes. The guy who was imprisoned for five years and was enslaved, never even stepped foot in the Americas, etc.

[SocialD]

Well when your only objective is having a reason to fling shit, logic need not apply to the situation.  

[dream big]

2 hours ago, kaputt said:

Statue of Ulysses S. Grant torn down in San Francisco. The man who won the Civil War for the Union, freed the only slave he ever owned, and was eulogized by Frederick Douglas. 

Our education system is a failure.

Also San Francisco is not America. 

Neither is Seattle nor it’s conclave “Chaz.”  Really sucks that the left has taken over some of the prettiest scenery in America. 

[brickhistory]

Was asked the other day by a kook liberal friend (but I repeat myself), "What are you doing, Brick, to adopt the new social consciousness that America is developing?"

"I carry a reload now," I answered.

They were not amused.

I was...

[billy pilgrim]

7 hours ago, dream big said:

Neither is Seattle nor it’s conclave “Chaz.”  Really sucks that the left has taken over some of the prettiest scenery in America. 

When does it turn into Lord of the Flies?  Is there a warlord?  Man, what a time to be alive!  /sarcasm

I'm not sure how much to trust my memory of the 90's when I was in HS, but subjectively it feels like America has changed a ton since there.  And not for the better.

1)  Limited media outlets limit opposing views (I'm no liberal but I did read Chomsky's Manufactering Consent, and it talks about this).

2)  The echo chamber of social media where people make decisions based on groupthink and their feelings as opposed to facts and logic*.

3)  Big tech companies (FB, Google, YouTube etc...) filtering their content politically, selectitvely.

4)  The hijacking of language, to the point where it is not possible to disucuss things as they are.  The actual truth becomes impossible to dig out, which makes already difficult problems impossible to solve.

5)  Academia (colleges) imparting their ideals on an entire generation of Americans.  I went to the Academy so I feel like this isn't something I have witnessed first hand, but I have absolutely seen the effects.  All my previously farily conservative relatives come out of college with all these wacky liberal ideas and views that don't seem to be grounded in reality at all*.

*These two points I think are related.  One of the root causes of our countries problems right now is falling back to our emotions and using emotions over logic to address our problems.  College is supposed to teach the opposite.  It's like we are evolving the wrong way (Behave by Sapolsky talks a lot about how are brains differ from lower animals, and basically our greatest tool is critical thinking, animals rely heavily on emotion - you shouldn't need to read a book though to realize this!)

I realize that I am preaching to the choir, but I am much more concerned about our country than I have ever been.  The division will be our downfall.  The 1st amendment (censorship, COVID assembly bans), 2nd (talk of more gun control), 4th (mass survellence and contact tracing "justified" by COVID)...  Ugly times.

Edited June 21, 2020 by billy pilgrim