woke

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: woke

Post by Walker »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:30 am Of course you would laugh. You are a sociapathic narcissist. Any attention is welcome to you. Many people deserve and need to be loathed. I'm only doing my human duty.
Foo Fighters
Run!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifwc5xgI3QM

Did you observe the beauty of your very own chuckle when the old man in the linked music video tore the man bun off the whippersnapper? I did.

Have you become too much woke up for such silliness?
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: woke

Post by Iwannaplato »

Walker wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:25 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:30 am Of course you would laugh. You are a sociapathic narcissist. Any attention is welcome to you. Many people deserve and need to be loathed. I'm only doing my human duty.
Foo Fighters
Run!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifwc5xgI3QM

Did you observe the beauty of your very own chuckle when the old man in the linked music video tore the man bun off the whippersnapper? I did.

Have you become too much woke up for such silliness?
LOL, vegetariantaxidermy is not woke. You are not paying attention.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: woke

Post by Sculptor »

Wokism is so disgusting.
Bring back the old days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzSqY6rwiM
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

How is it that Bill Maher gets it, yet no one on this site does (or pretends not to)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KleZzdf ... DavidRiggs
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 11:06 pm Wokism is so disgusting.
Bring back the old days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUzSqY6rwiM
Yukky poms. They have always been repulsive anyway. They are just a lot more phony (woke) now. Still the same murderous, warmongering arseholes though.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: woke

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:09 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:57 pm Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?
Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.
Got it. I just don’t think they secretly believe God exists. I agree with all the rest.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: woke

Post by Iwannaplato »

Often theists and atheists pretend to be psychics. They want their ad homs to have that psychological bite so they tell their group and their opponent group 'what must really be going on in the opposing team's minds'.

Here's a theist version....
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:09 pm Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.
and we can change that to the atheist version by swapping a few words and it will be similar to atheist ad hom psychological attacks that one can find regularly on discussion forums...
What a theist is, is somebody who wants to believe in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God exists. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their belief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your disbelief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God exists. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He doesn't. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also believe).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.Not quite.
There are, on the other hand, both theists and atheists who are NOT, pretending-to-be-psychic, amateur psychologist, generalization fallacy wankers like this.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:42 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:09 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:57 pm Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?
Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.
Got it. I just don’t think they secretly believe God exists. I agree with all the rest.
Well, I remember what Browning said about this: that nobody's free from doubt. Theists are not, and Atheists are not. The Theists, says Browning, experience a life of faith, shot through with moments of doubt, when they have to struggle with some challenge to their faith and decide what to do with that doubt; and the Atheists experience a life characterized largely by doubt, but shot through with moments when faith breaks through and they begin to doubt their unbelief itself. The birth of a baby, a starry sky, a moment of tenderness with a loved one, the irritation felt at an injustice, the quavering note of an old song, the universal human longing for purpose in the face of encroaching death...these things can induce even the most earnest skeptic to pause and to wonder if he hasn't, after all, overplayed his own skepticism. And there's certainly enough evidence in nature to warrant the suspicion of design and purpose, even in the most ardent Atheist. Dawkins, pretty much the poster-boy for unbelief, has himself said this:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator."

Nevertheless, Dawkins insists, everybody mus fight this impulse, however powerful and general it might be, and insist on believing that it's all a product of cosmic accident. WHY we must insist on this, he does not say. One could accuse him of fighting the evidence. But he does illustrate the point very well: to be an Atheist is to have to fight the apprehension of design in nature, of objective morality in the order of things, and of purpose in life.

So if Atheists would sometimes like us all to believe they know what they're talking about, they should at least tell us on what rational basis we must set out to defy our strong inclinations to attribute the evidence we see to a Maker. And if they cannot, then we might well wonder why they fight it so ardently.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: woke

Post by Walker »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 10:47 pm
Walker wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 9:25 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:30 am Of course you would laugh. You are a sociapathic narcissist. Any attention is welcome to you. Many people deserve and need to be loathed. I'm only doing my human duty.
Foo Fighters
Run!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifwc5xgI3QM

Did you observe the beauty of your very own chuckle when the old man in the linked music video tore the man bun off the whippersnapper? I did.

Have you become too much woke up for such silliness?
LOL, vegetariantaxidermy is not woke. You are not paying attention.
So, this is the portal to mind that you offer. So be it. So let it be written ... then I’ll explain.

- The theme of her posting, that I was responding to, is a manifestation of the quality of unfairness. The theme is unfairness in action, if you will, since the content of her words to which I was responding, was meaningless to all but some of her private intellectual associations that she has formed over the course of her reactionary lifetime.

- This habitual action of hers, of posting unfairness, may be a reincarnated quality, or maybe it’s an added-on quality caused by some psychic trauma, or perhaps caused by a drop on the noggin as an infant.

- Anyway, be that as it may, because we exist here as words then although it’s sometimes necessary to crawl through a sewer ditch of language to return wordly (correct spelling) unfairness, then the appropriate response, in keeping with the theme of unfairness in action, to which I was responding, is to return the theme of unfairness in the style to which I have grown accustomed in this all too-brief bardo, and that is to not sound like an illiterate raised in a gutter.

- This intent, somehow guiding the body and thoughts through motions too tiny to perceive without sensory aids and/or understanding of electricity-physics, re-projected unfairness back into the barrel of the gun pointed at the contradiction existing between the muzzle and the target of self-concept, a re-projection caused by qualities of decency, much as reincarnation can be the actionable continuation of incarnated fairness.

- Thus, the label of woke and all it implies to haters of woke, whatever woke means to the muzzle loader … the label of woke becomes something for the woke-loather to disprove, in whichever way it applies to the spewing muzzle.

- The difference between this manifesting manifestation of unfairness, and crawling in the sewer, is that sewer projections are obviously hyperbolic insanity that need no rebuttal by sane folks, whereas projecting her bugaboo of wokeness back into the muzzle that is firing throat energy of unfairness ... carries the weight of a simple truth … that there is no scientific consensus to define woke, at least none yet proven here via reasoning or the borrowing of reasoning from an expert who sports credentials.

- If you managed to read all that, you may ask, what does it mean and not only that, what is the purpose?


*

- It has been explained in another time.

- It means that because a minutia dive into a grain of sand is quite often perceived as unfair, such a practice is in fact a luxury of spending time and energy empowered by actionless action, via the appropriate tactic, which is Dada.

- Thus, in the spirit of the transmission frequency, it is an orderly assemblage that is simultaneously sardonic, thoughtful, and without any purpose in the cog workings of the machine, which includes the well-known cog-working machine of sewer slime retaliation.

- Dada can be understood by a doing far more simple than dada blather.

- For example: one need only walk out to your suburban lawn that grows lush because of the chemical baths that kill weeds and bugs in a horrible twisting thros of agony, then setting the blades on the power mower high so that they do not touch a single blade of the green growth growing wild and free and undisciplined, then proceeding to follow the usual routine of fulfilling a chore. Mowing the lawn, as they say. *

- For the thoughtful, it’s a harmless doing to perceive what one would normally not do, thus experiencing the unknown, an experience which is not always as grand a fantasy as one would prefer.


- The purpose of this practice should be obvious, and that is to paint the cog works of animosity with fluorescent graffiti paint, but not with real paint, because really doing that would be against both the rule of law and man.

- Did you observe the beauty of this practice? I did, but then again, the beauty is found in the doing of order, not speculating about assembling elements of meaning.

:|


* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmWxIvK2Do
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: woke

Post by Walker »

Image

The sign is a futile hope that a woke person will not smash his car window to rescue his dog and call the cops, who will carry the dog-hater to the hoosegow.

Or, it's a woke guy waiting for his master.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: woke

Post by commonsense »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:59 pm Well, I remember what Browning said about this: that nobody's free from doubt. Theists are not, and Atheists are not. The Theists, says Browning, experience a life of faith, shot through with moments of doubt, when they have to struggle with some challenge to their faith and decide what to do with that doubt; and the Atheists experience a life characterized largely by doubt, but shot through with moments when faith breaks through and they begin to doubt their unbelief itself. The birth of a baby, a starry sky, a moment of tenderness with a loved one, the irritation felt at an injustice, the quavering note of an old song, the universal human longing for purpose in the face of encroaching death...these things can induce even the most earnest skeptic to pause and to wonder if he hasn't, after all, overplayed his own skepticism. And there's certainly enough evidence in nature to warrant the suspicion of design and purpose, even in the most ardent Atheist. Dawkins, pretty much the poster-boy for unbelief, has himself said this:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator."

Nevertheless, Dawkins insists, everybody mus fight this impulse, however powerful and general it might be, and insist on believing that it's all a product of cosmic accident. WHY we must insist on this, he does not say. One could accuse him of fighting the evidence. But he does illustrate the point very well: to be an Atheist is to have to fight the apprehension of design in nature, of objective morality in the order of things, and of purpose in life.

So if Atheists would sometimes like us all to believe they know what they're talking about, they should at least tell us on what rational basis we must set out to defy our strong inclinations to attribute the evidence we see to a Maker. And if they cannot, then we might well wonder why they fight it so ardently.
OK, but I don’t understand why you’ve said in effect that atheists pretend that they don’t have doubts that they have.

Is it because of what Browning said?

Then wouldn’t the same be true of theists, I.e. that theists have doubts, too?

But isn’t it the agnostics who have doubts?

Even if the theists and atheists have doubts as well as the agnostics, doubting a disbelief isn’t the same as the same as believing, yes?

And about pretending, wouldn’t one have to be awake to a doubt in order to pretend not to have it? Does that kind of awareness make wokies out of the atheists?

Finally, aren’t your points just as true of theists as you say about atheists?

Looking forward to your reply,
CS
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

So anyone who doesn't want to see a dog dying horribly while locked up in a car is 'woke' in your teeny tiny pea brain? Do you just pretend to be that stupid and clueless? You seem to relish being as annoying as possible, like a gnat that keeps evading being swatted.
Not long ago a child died while locked up in a car in his booster seat. The mother apparently 'forgot' that he was there. I suppose in your tiny pea-brain and intervention from a passerby would have been 'woke'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22139
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

commonsense wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 7:09 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 08, 2022 3:59 pm Well, I remember what Browning said about this: that nobody's free from doubt. Theists are not, and Atheists are not. The Theists, says Browning, experience a life of faith, shot through with moments of doubt, when they have to struggle with some challenge to their faith and decide what to do with that doubt; and the Atheists experience a life characterized largely by doubt, but shot through with moments when faith breaks through and they begin to doubt their unbelief itself. The birth of a baby, a starry sky, a moment of tenderness with a loved one, the irritation felt at an injustice, the quavering note of an old song, the universal human longing for purpose in the face of encroaching death...these things can induce even the most earnest skeptic to pause and to wonder if he hasn't, after all, overplayed his own skepticism. And there's certainly enough evidence in nature to warrant the suspicion of design and purpose, even in the most ardent Atheist. Dawkins, pretty much the poster-boy for unbelief, has himself said this:

“I think that when you consider the beauty of the world and you wonder how it came to be what it is, you are naturally overwhelmed with a feeling of awe, a feeling of admiration and you almost feel a desire to worship something. I feel this, I recognise that other scientists such as Carl Sagan feel this, Einstein felt it. We, all of us, share a kind of religious reverence for the beauties of the universe, for the complexity of life. For the sheer magnitude of the cosmos, the sheer magnitude of geological time. And it’s tempting to translate that feeling of awe and worship into a desire to worship some particular thing, a person, an agent. You want to attribute it to a maker, to a creator."

Nevertheless, Dawkins insists, everybody mus fight this impulse, however powerful and general it might be, and insist on believing that it's all a product of cosmic accident. WHY we must insist on this, he does not say. One could accuse him of fighting the evidence. But he does illustrate the point very well: to be an Atheist is to have to fight the apprehension of design in nature, of objective morality in the order of things, and of purpose in life.

So if Atheists would sometimes like us all to believe they know what they're talking about, they should at least tell us on what rational basis we must set out to defy our strong inclinations to attribute the evidence we see to a Maker. And if they cannot, then we might well wonder why they fight it so ardently.
OK, but I don’t understand why you’ve said in effect that atheists pretend that they don’t have doubts that they have.
No, I certainly never said Atheists have no doubts. That would be unsustainable. I said what Browning said: that the doubters have doubts about their doubts. That they're invariably suspicous they're simply wrong, because they know they don't have the evidence requisite for the confidence they evince.

As for whether or not they really know God exists, He says they do:

...that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools,... (Romans 1:19-22)

So I believe what God says: that men know that God exists. And in that, I include all the Atheists, however ardently they may protest. Dawkins furnishes a relevant example, of course. But I do believe the testimony of God on that matter.
Then wouldn’t the same be true of theists, I.e. that theists have doubts, too?
Indeed so. Both Browning and I agree on that.

But faith can coexist with doubt. Far from being opposites, doubts are the training ground by which faith is strengthened. For it is only by facing doubts, and by learning the reasons why they are unwarranted, that one becomes stronger in faith. Doubt is, for the cynic, his curse, and the downfall of his hopes; but for a faithful person, it's a kind of gymnasium in which people of faith can strengthen their muscles.
But isn’t it the agnostics who have doubts?
They do indeed. As do Atheists. But Atheists are loath to talk about that, whereas agnostics tend to be more honest.

But the life of faith is a life of faith. And faith is belief about matters which, however well-premised on evidence, are not held with the absolute conviction of a mathematical proof, but with the self-investing, embodied commitment of one who is prepared to live and die by what God has revealed to to us to be true.
Even if the theists and atheists have doubts as well as the agnostics, doubting a disbelief isn’t the same as the same as believing, yes?
No, it's not; you're right.

So the Atheist, however "disbelieving" he may be, is not capable of saying he "believes there is no God." But then, he's not really an Atheist at all, but something on the spectrum of agnosticism. Maybe he's like Dawkins, who self-identifies as a "strong agnostic" instead of an Atheist. As I said earlier, Atheism is not a rational position, and can never be. Even Dawkins knows that.
And about pretending, wouldn’t one have to be awake to a doubt in order to pretend not to have it? Does that kind of awareness make wokies out of the atheists?
A "wokie" is a specific coinage, though. It's not applied to people who are physically "waking up" from sleep, nor is it applied to people generally who are "awakened" to new facts. It's a coinage from self-congratulating Leftists, who regard themselves as "woke" (to everything but grammar, apparently), and everybody else as "slumbering" under the illusion that not everything in life is a matter of "power." To become a "wokie," one has to participate in the Neo-Marxist gnostic description of history, and advocate accordingly. (They insist on "praxis.")
Finally, aren’t your points just as true of theists as you say about atheists?
Which points?

I have said that Theists know what doubt is, just as agnostics do. But their commitments are to faith, not to cynicism or even to unrelenting uncommitment. Either agnosticism or Theism can thus be held on a rational basis. Atheism cannot. It asks too much, epistemologically. It demands certainty where certainty is simply impossible.
Looking forward to your reply,
CS
I hope this is clear. If not, feel free to question, of course.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: woke

Post by commonsense »

Thanks, IC. Very clear.Very helpful.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Why is 'cultural appropriation' (who comes up with these shit terms?) evil and despicable, while 'gender appropriation' is noble and good? Why don't these cretinous fuckturds go and watch some videos on quantum mechanics instead of coming up with new ways to make normal people throw up?
Post Reply