woke

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 3:25 am Yes. We all vote for what we regard as best.
I'm not at all sure that's evident from the current political landscape. We have had men in power who (without mentioning parties or countries) are naive, foolish, demented, ideologically-possessed, selfish and even sexually predacious. And somebody voted for them.
WHY did you NOT mention parties or countries? Do you have some thing to FEAR here? Was there ANOTHER reason?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am
But voting supposes a collective response to issues in society.

Not really. It presupposes that the majority should make the decision about who is in power for a given time.
Which is just ANOTHER definition for 'collective'.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am That's all.
What do SEE is the DIFFERENCE?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am Nobody needs to join a "collective" or conceive themselves as belonging to one, in order simply to vote.
But when there is a group of human beings thinking and/or doing the SAME WAY, then if that is NOT a 'collective', then what is 'it', EXACTLY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am
You seem to repeatedly drift from "I'm ok with some degree of social programs" back over to the idea that social programs are "socialist" and that "socialism/collectivism" is the epitome of evil in our time.
There's a difference between Socialism, the ideology, and a "social program," Gary. One can be fine with, say, a employment insurance, or a charitable fund for the mentally ill, without thereby becoming a Socialist. That can be just charity, community effort, or good use of resources, and can be launched at the local, city or regional level, when necessary. If people want it, it can happen. Heck, even traditional societies like the Mennonites or the Amish practice that sort of community support.
Even the traditional society like the so-called "christians" sometimes practice that sort of community support. But, ALWAYS ONLY for a VERY SELECT FEW.

By the way "immanuel can" what does the word 'Socialism' even mean or refer to, to you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am But that's unrelated to the ideology of Socialism (notice the "ism" which marks a totalizing belief system).
I am VERY GLAD and HAPPY 'you' POINTED 'this' OUT.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:18 am Socialism is a much more aggressive and ambitious ideology. And it's that that I oppose, for many reasons.
What is 'that', EXACTLY, that you supposedly 'oppose'?

Did 'you', already, INFORM 'us' of what 'Socialism' IS, EXACTLY, to 'you'?

If no, then WHY NOT?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 4:43 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
From the sounds of it he's read the Bible. And apparently, we've been reading books that won't get us anywhere wonderful in life.
But just reading a book, like the one called 'the bible', does NOT mean that that will make 'you' UNDERSTAND. "immanuel can" is LIVING PROOF of THIS.

'The bible', like MANY OTHER books, will only get 'you' SOMEWHERE in Life, if 'the book' was made Correctly, and is NOT being MISINTERPRETED. Unfortunately the bible has NOT been INTERPRETED Correctly and FULLY, YET, well NOT by ANY of 'you', posters, here.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: woke

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
Thought-provoking is fairly rare, I think. It does happen. Sometimes someone will come at an issue from an angle I haven't encountered - thought-provoking meaning here something that provokes new thoughts in me directly due to its for-me-novel-nature. Usually what you get in most online forums is the rehashing of memes and viewpoints/attitudes that are 'out there' (in some way making things the way they are) and also find inside ourselves. I mean, most of us, regardless of our beliefs, if we've grown up in much of the West cannot have avoided taking in something like the Christian idea of sin. Even if we don't believe in God or are Buddhists, etc. So, we can in encountering an IC deal with those kinds of memes, that kind of attitude, in a kind of slow motion. What happens if I say _____________? Can such an attitude actually respond to point _______________?

Can I reduce the influence in myself of meme 234 by a slow motion encounter with an advocate?
What is the psychology of an advocate of viewpoint 35B?

I envy you in a way if you actually simply find it entertaining. I mean, wow. Not being annoyed or triggered at least part of the time by people whose idea - I am assuming in this case - bother you and have a great deal of power 'out there' and possibly 'in there' also (for you).
On the other hand I think it's missing out on the possibilities of what one can gain from dealing with someone (who, yes, is not fully capable of responding to what people actually say and who, likely without realizing it, makes assumptions and leaps and leaves glaring lacunae in 'responses') here in old PN.

For entertainment alone, well, perhaps playing an online chess computer or even earning some money while being entertained in an online poker site. But, to each his own.

Just adding a third option for consideration.

Can one reduce, if only locally, the effects of viewpoint 35B or meme 234, and also what is really going on in the carriers of these things? The latter not scientific, but still I think we can learn a lot about at least how and why individuals align with, take on, get used by, seek to be contagious with their now favorite ideas. And what allows them to hold them in place when faced with opposition of various kinds.

But if you really want thought provoking, you're probably not in the right place. At least percentage wise.

There are a couple of ways of taking someone seriously. I don't take IC seriously in at least one of the main ways one does this. But attitude/memes riding him, well...that's having real affects out there though their nearly all gone, in here.

I use ridden (riding) in the anthropological sense....
The term ‘possession’ has been applied to Africa, the African diaspora (especially Brazil and the Caribbean), the Middle East, the Pacific, and sometimes South and Southeast Asia in contexts in which humans are said to be temporarily displaced, inhabited or ridden by particular spirits.
Criticizing the functionalistic approach that focuses on the functions of the practice for the medium or the society, she pushes for an understanding of spirit possession as a collaboration of the possessing agents and the possessed. Other scholars argue that the metaphor of
‘being ridden as a horse’ does not acknowledge sufficiently the agency of the medium by putting too much emphasis on the possessing entity. Roberto Motta, for instance, argues that mediums are not transformed to helpless victims but remain vital for the body trance, as he describes mediumship (Motta 2005). Supporting Motta’s argument Mark Münzel compares mediumship with the performance of a dressage horse which the rider guides through the elegant and difficult routine: without the rider the horse would not accomplish its complex task as well as vice versa, without the horse the rider could not carry on
We'll need a context of course. 8)
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

The use of 'woke' began as black American slang for 'alert' and could be applied as a warning to 'stay alert' for any kind of suspicious behaviour ('be/stay woke''). Politically Correct' has evolved in a similar way into a disparaging insult for a certain type of person who takes the moral high ground in a dictatorial, hypocritical and self-congratulatory 'with us or against us' fashion. Wokies and religious hypocrites are two sides of the same coin although religious hypocrites generally stop short of telling others how to speak or think. They are happy to stick with telling everyone else how to live. 'Wanker' and 'self-righteous hypocrite' both apply, but don't have the same depth and ironic value as 'woke', so until someone comes up with a better 'noun' that catches on then 'woke' will have to do.
Last edited by vegetariantaxidermy on Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: woke

Post by iambiguous »

Age wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:08 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am ME:
iambiguous wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:12 pm

Right, of course. The Republican conservatives, rugged individualists all, just happen to nod vigorously, in unison, to practically everything that Trump says. While the Democratic liberals, mindless sheep all, are programmed to nod vigorously, in unison, to everything that Biden says because it's all plotted out beforehand in the Comet Ping Pong pizza parlor in Washington D.C.





Uh, in your head, for example?



Okay, note for us just the top five instances of this that pop into your pinhead. And the ring-wing extremists never, ever resort to that sort of thing. Like, for example, when Antifa tried to take over the Capital Building and went gunning for, among others, Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence. And then had the gall to blame on the MAGA fanatics!!





So, when others here make the decision not to accept Jesus Christ as their own personal savior, the consequences are eternal damnation. In Hell. And what exactly does that have to do with Leftists?



Well, if the Christian God does exist, He gave me a brain and the capacity to use it. I have introspected deeply for years and years about God and religion. And in all honesty and in all sincerity, I cannot believe that He does exist. Here and now. Not without evidence that He and not one of the zillions of other Gods does.

But there you and your declamatory ilk are boasting of how the Christian God gives us a choice to somehow just "believe" in Him with no evidence other then your videos and quotes from the Bible...or face utter agony in Hell for all the rest of eternity.

The same thing so many others on their own declamatory One True Paths are telling us.



In other words, if I don't "wake up" and "see the light".

Yours though, not henry's. At least in regard to the other side of the grave.
HIM:
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 10:28 pm
Quite so.

Maybe "intro-spection" is looking in the wrong direction. Have you ever considered that?

If it were the right direction you were looking, don't you think you'd have found something? You'd either find evidence God exists, or evidence He doesn't. But you say you have no evidence.

So maybe you should look a different direction. Maybe you should have a look at those videos, as a starting point.

Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?


ABSOLUTELY NO one could, ACTUALLY and LOGICALLY.

"immanuel can" is SO BLIND and SO CLOSED 'it' STILL ACTUALLY BELIEVES that some 'thing' Created the WHOLE Universe, and that this 'thing' is, LAUGHABLY, 'male gendered', which, VERY CONVENIENTLY is what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. Which is; literally, anthropomorphism in the HIGHEST DEGREE.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
God exits.

But although that is a challenging and thought-provoking point of view, "immanuel can" is FURTHER AWAY than most people here of KNOWING, EXACTLY, HOW God exists.
Again, admittedly, this is just another "rooted existentially in dasein" personal opinion on my part but compared to Age, Immanuel Can is an actual pleasure to read.

UNless of COURSE I'M wrong.

A "CONDITION" let's call it. :wink:
User avatar
Astro Cat
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:09 pm

Re: woke

Post by Astro Cat »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:55 am I guess if I want to avoid collectivist ways I'll need to not vote anymore. I'm sure only collectivists participate in the voting process.
Not at all. You can be an individual and vote.

But vote as an individual, for the candidates and parties that actually have the policies you regard as best. Vote for those that maximize opportunity and don't overreach. Vote for those with sane economic policies, good character, and a track record of success. Don't vote for a candidate just because he's red or blue.
I wish two things: one, that there *were* candidates I agreed with more readily.

And two, that even if there were, that I could freely vote for them in a first-past-the-post, two-party society where my vote for a hypothetical third party candidate may as well be a vote cast for the candidate the *furthest* from my views due to the spoiler effect.

It’s good cause for disillusionment.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
Thought-provoking is fairly rare, I think. It does happen. Sometimes someone will come at an issue from an angle I haven't encountered - thought-provoking meaning here something that provokes new thoughts in me directly due to its for-me-novel-nature. Usually what you get in most online forums is the rehashing of memes and viewpoints/attitudes that are 'out there' (in some way making things the way they are) and also find inside ourselves. I mean, most of us, regardless of our beliefs, if we've grown up in much of the West cannot have avoided taking in something like the Christian idea of sin.
And it is the 'taking in' and the 'rehashing' of VERY OLD Wrong and MISINTERPRETED 'ideas', like the "christian" 'idea of 'sin', for example, WHY 'you', human beings, were STILL in the MESS, that is; STILL living IN the HELL-like existence, which 'you' WERE IN, back in the days when this WAS being written.

I would NOT be surprised AT ALL if EVERY one of 'you', posters, here has the Wrong 'idea' of what the word 'sin' ONCE MEANT and REFERRED TO, EXACTLY.

And, by the way, it was from those Wrong MISINTERPRETATIONS that 'you' HAD or HAVE WHY 'you' were STILL ARGUING and FIGHTING WITH each with, and KILLING each other OVER.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am Even if we don't believe in God or are Buddhists, etc. So, we can in encountering an IC deal with those kinds of memes, that kind of attitude, in a kind of slow motion. What happens if I say _____________? Can such an attitude actually respond to point _______________?

Can I reduce the influence in myself of meme 234 by a slow motion encounter with an advocate?
What is the psychology of an advocate of viewpoint 35B?

I envy you in a way if you actually simply find it entertaining. I mean, wow. Not being annoyed or triggered at least part of the time by people whose idea - I am assuming in this case - bother you and have a great deal of power 'out there' and possibly 'in there' also (for you).
On the other hand I think it's missing out on the possibilities of what one can gain from dealing with someone (who, yes, is not fully capable of responding to what people actually say and who, likely without realizing it, makes assumptions and leaps and leaves glaring lacunae in 'responses') here in old PN.

For entertainment alone, well, perhaps playing an online chess computer or even earning some money while being entertained in an online poker site. But, to each his own.

Just adding a third option for consideration.

Can one reduce, if only locally, the effects of viewpoint 35B or meme 234, and also what is really going on in the carriers of these things? The latter not scientific, but still I think we can learn a lot about at least how and why individuals align with, take on, get used by, seek to be contagious with their now favorite ideas. And what allows them to hold them in place when faced with opposition of various kinds.
I found that WHEN I FOUND some 'thing' that could NOT be OPPOSED, then, and ONLY THEN, would I hold on to that 'thing'. So, WHEN some 'thing' is absolutely irrefutable 'this' is what allows me to HOLD that 'thing' in place.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am But if you really want thought provoking, you're probably not in the right place. At least percentage wise.

There are a couple of ways of taking someone seriously. I don't take IC seriously in at least one of the main ways one does this. But attitude/memes riding him, well...that's having real affects out there though their nearly all gone, in here.

I use ridden (riding) in the anthropological sense....
The term ‘possession’ has been applied to Africa, the African diaspora (especially Brazil and the Caribbean), the Middle East, the Pacific, and sometimes South and Southeast Asia in contexts in which humans are said to be temporarily displaced, inhabited or ridden by particular spirits.
Criticizing the functionalistic approach that focuses on the functions of the practice for the medium or the society, she pushes for an understanding of spirit possession as a collaboration of the possessing agents and the possessed. Other scholars argue that the metaphor of
‘being ridden as a horse’ does not acknowledge sufficiently the agency of the medium by putting too much emphasis on the possessing entity. Roberto Motta, for instance, argues that mediums are not transformed to helpless victims but remain vital for the body trance, as he describes mediumship (Motta 2005). Supporting Motta’s argument Mark Münzel compares mediumship with the performance of a dressage horse which the rider guides through the elegant and difficult routine: without the rider the horse would not accomplish its complex task as well as vice versa, without the horse the rider could not carry on
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:51 pm The use of 'woke' began as black American slang for 'alert' and could be applied as a warning to 'stay alert' for any kind of suspicious behaviour ('be/stay woke''). Politically Correct' has evolved in a similar way into a disparaging insult for a certain type of person who takes the moral high ground in a dictatorial, hypocritical and self-congratulatory 'with us or against us' fashion. Wokies and religious hypocrites are two sides of the same coin although religious hypocrites generally stop short of telling others how to speak or think. They are happy to stick with telling everyone else how to live. 'Wanker' and 'self-righteous hypocrite' both apply, but don't have the same depth and ironic value as 'woke', so until someone comes up with a better 'noun' that catches on then 'woke' will have to do.
This is one example of different definitions for different words, which, obviously, some would agree with some or all of these definitions, while "others" will disagree with some and agree with some, while "others" again will disagree with all, and then there are the completely OTHER definitions for some or all of those words.

So, which one/s are ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct?

WHEN 'you', adult human beings, BEGIN to WORK OUT HOW to ARRIVE at thee IRREFUTABLE Truth here, THEN 'you' can START to live in Peace AND Harmony.

Until then 'you' are, literally, on your OWN, and thus will continue creating the MESS that 'you' ALL are here.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:54 pm
Age wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:08 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am ME:



HIM:




Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?


ABSOLUTELY NO one could, ACTUALLY and LOGICALLY.

"immanuel can" is SO BLIND and SO CLOSED 'it' STILL ACTUALLY BELIEVES that some 'thing' Created the WHOLE Universe, and that this 'thing' is, LAUGHABLY, 'male gendered', which, VERY CONVENIENTLY is what 'it' IS, EXACTLY. Which is; literally, anthropomorphism in the HIGHEST DEGREE.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
God exits.

But although that is a challenging and thought-provoking point of view, "immanuel can" is FURTHER AWAY than most people here of KNOWING, EXACTLY, HOW God exists.
Again, admittedly, this is just another "rooted existentially in dasein" personal opinion on my part but compared to Age, Immanuel Can is an actual pleasure to read.

UNless of COURSE I'M wrong.
LOL HOW could 'you' be WRONG in what 'you' LIKE or DISLIKE?

If 'you' do NOT find reading MY WORDS PLEASURABLE, and 'you' find reading "immanuel can's" WORDS PLEASURABLE, then so be it. That is, literally, JUST what 'you' LIKE and DISLIKE, which NO one REALLY CARES about.

If, however, 'you' could find FAULT, FLAWS, INCONSISTENCIES, and/or CONTRADICTIONS in my words, then THAT is what 'we' REALLY CARE ABOUT.

OBVIOUSLY, 'you' have NOT found ANY, or 'you' will NOT POINT 'them' OUT.
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:54 pm A "CONDITION" let's call it. :wink:
ONCE AGAIN, this one ALSO provides ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, other than ANOTHER ATTEMPT at RIDICULE of "another".

Of ALL places, a philosophy forum one would EXPECT 'ad hominen attacks' would be NON EXISTENT and for the posters to CONCENTRATE, SOLELY, on JUST the WORDS being SAID and WRITTEN ONLY. But, very sadly, in the days when this was being written, it is VERY EASY to IMAGINE just HOW MUCH ABUSE was in SOCIETY, ITSELF, going by HOW MUCH personal attacks were made in A PHILOSOPHY FORUM such as this one here.

And, LOL this one PROPOSES that 'I' have a so-called "CONDITION" while at the EXACT SAME TIME BELIEVING that 'it' DOES NOT. 'it' had NOT YET WORKED OUT NOR LEARNED that EVERY adult human being has A 'CONDITION'.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Age wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:09 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:51 pm The use of 'woke' began as black American slang for 'alert' and could be applied as a warning to 'stay alert' for any kind of suspicious behaviour ('be/stay woke''). Politically Correct' has evolved in a similar way into a disparaging insult for a certain type of person who takes the moral high ground in a dictatorial, hypocritical and self-congratulatory 'with us or against us' fashion. Wokies and religious hypocrites are two sides of the same coin although religious hypocrites generally stop short of telling others how to speak or think. They are happy to stick with telling everyone else how to live. 'Wanker' and 'self-righteous hypocrite' both apply, but don't have the same depth and ironic value as 'woke', so until someone comes up with a better 'noun' that catches on then 'woke' will have to do.
This is one example of different definitions for different words, which, obviously, some would agree with some or all of these definitions, while "others" will disagree with some and agree with some, while "others" again will disagree with all, and then there are the completely OTHER definitions for some or all of those words.

So, which one/s are ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct?

WHEN 'you', adult human beings, BEGIN to WORK OUT HOW to ARRIVE at thee IRREFUTABLE Truth here, THEN 'you' can START to live in Peace AND Harmony.

Until then 'you' are, literally, on your OWN, and thus will continue creating the MESS that 'you' ALL are here.
What a fool. Sorry, but I can't increase your intelligence and ability to think critically--much as I would like to.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:30 am
Age wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 12:09 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:51 pm The use of 'woke' began as black American slang for 'alert' and could be applied as a warning to 'stay alert' for any kind of suspicious behaviour ('be/stay woke''). Politically Correct' has evolved in a similar way into a disparaging insult for a certain type of person who takes the moral high ground in a dictatorial, hypocritical and self-congratulatory 'with us or against us' fashion. Wokies and religious hypocrites are two sides of the same coin although religious hypocrites generally stop short of telling others how to speak or think. They are happy to stick with telling everyone else how to live. 'Wanker' and 'self-righteous hypocrite' both apply, but don't have the same depth and ironic value as 'woke', so until someone comes up with a better 'noun' that catches on then 'woke' will have to do.
This is one example of different definitions for different words, which, obviously, some would agree with some or all of these definitions, while "others" will disagree with some and agree with some, while "others" again will disagree with all, and then there are the completely OTHER definitions for some or all of those words.

So, which one/s are ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct?

WHEN 'you', adult human beings, BEGIN to WORK OUT HOW to ARRIVE at thee IRREFUTABLE Truth here, THEN 'you' can START to live in Peace AND Harmony.

Until then 'you' are, literally, on your OWN, and thus will continue creating the MESS that 'you' ALL are here.
What a fool. Sorry, but I can't increase your intelligence and ability to think critically--much as I would like to.
LOL The True FOOL here is the one who BELIEVES that its OWN definition is the ONLY definition, or is the ONLY definition that is true and right.

And, I am NOT the one who BELIEVES such a RIDICULOUS thing.

ONLY 'you', "vegetariantaxidermy" are the ONLY one here doing this.

Also, here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of one who can NOT fault NOR flaw what I SAY and CLAIM here, but, OBVIOUSLY, does NOT like what I SAID and SHOWED about their OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong and/or Incorrect CLAIMS, and the ONLY thing they could and did do was 'try to' RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATE 'me'. Which, by the way, will NEVER work.

ONCE AGAIN, these people, back then, RESORTED to ATTEMPTS at 'ad hominen ATTACKS' instead of ACTUALLY even trying to ARGUE AGAINST the ACTUAL WORDS PUT FORTH.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: woke

Post by FlashDangerpants »

ScaryScaryWokies.jpg
ScaryScaryWokies.jpg (46.19 KiB) Viewed 356 times
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

What a bunch of morons on this site.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9939
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: woke

Post by attofishpi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:44 am What a bunch of morons on this site.
I agree Veg. I think it is disgusting that an entire thread is being devoted to you and your penchant for Wookie (c***).

*cough cough* ..k
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: woke

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:48 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 2:31 am Note to others:

As most of you know, I engage IC here as a form of entertainment...something I do to amuse myself. I basically allow him to post things [like the above] such that I am able to expose how, in my view, no one makes a bigger fool of him here than he does himself.

Still, others actually engage him as though he really does have intelligent things to say about God and religion.

And I'd appreciate it if they would take the time to explain why. How can anyone here take him seriously?

What do I keep missing? Please cite something he posted that you deemed to be a challenging or a thought-provoking point of view.
Thought-provoking is fairly rare, I think. It does happen. Sometimes someone will come at an issue from an angle I haven't encountered - thought-provoking meaning here something that provokes new thoughts in me directly due to its for-me-novel-nature. Usually what you get in most online forums is the rehashing of memes and viewpoints/attitudes that are 'out there' (in some way making things the way they are) and also find inside ourselves. I mean, most of us, regardless of our beliefs, if we've grown up in much of the West cannot have avoided taking in something like the Christian idea of sin. Even if we don't believe in God or are Buddhists, etc. So, we can in encountering an IC deal with those kinds of memes, that kind of attitude, in a kind of slow motion. What happens if I say _____________? Can such an attitude actually respond to point _______________?

Can I reduce the influence in myself of meme 234 by a slow motion encounter with an advocate?
What is the psychology of an advocate of viewpoint 35B?

I envy you in a way if you actually simply find it entertaining. I mean, wow. Not being annoyed or triggered at least part of the time by people whose idea - I am assuming in this case - bother you and have a great deal of power 'out there' and possibly 'in there' also (for you).
On the other hand I think it's missing out on the possibilities of what one can gain from dealing with someone (who, yes, is not fully capable of responding to what people actually say and who, likely without realizing it, makes assumptions and leaps and leaves glaring lacunae in 'responses') here in old PN.

For entertainment alone, well, perhaps playing an online chess computer or even earning some money while being entertained in an online poker site. But, to each his own.

Just adding a third option for consideration.

Can one reduce, if only locally, the effects of viewpoint 35B or meme 234, and also what is really going on in the carriers of these things? The latter not scientific, but still I think we can learn a lot about at least how and why individuals align with, take on, get used by, seek to be contagious with their now favorite ideas. And what allows them to hold them in place when faced with opposition of various kinds.

But if you really want thought provoking, you're probably not in the right place. At least percentage wise.

There are a couple of ways of taking someone seriously. I don't take IC seriously in at least one of the main ways one does this. But attitude/memes riding him, well...that's having real affects out there though their nearly all gone, in here.

I use ridden (riding) in the anthropological sense....
The term ‘possession’ has been applied to Africa, the African diaspora (especially Brazil and the Caribbean), the Middle East, the Pacific, and sometimes South and Southeast Asia in contexts in which humans are said to be temporarily displaced, inhabited or ridden by particular spirits.
Criticizing the functionalistic approach that focuses on the functions of the practice for the medium or the society, she pushes for an understanding of spirit possession as a collaboration of the possessing agents and the possessed. Other scholars argue that the metaphor of
‘being ridden as a horse’ does not acknowledge sufficiently the agency of the medium by putting too much emphasis on the possessing entity. Roberto Motta, for instance, argues that mediums are not transformed to helpless victims but remain vital for the body trance, as he describes mediumship (Motta 2005). Supporting Motta’s argument Mark Münzel compares mediumship with the performance of a dressage horse which the rider guides through the elegant and difficult routine: without the rider the horse would not accomplish its complex task as well as vice versa, without the horse the rider could not carry on
We'll need a context of course. 8)
Always a pleasant surprise to get a respectful, well thought-out response when one makes a respectful, well thought-out response to someone's post.
Post Reply