humor and being ''WOKE''

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:40 am
Harbal wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:49 pm
I am offended by dishonesty, regardless of where it is coming from, or who is intended to be disadvantaged by it.
Nobody is. There is no dishonesty. There can be no dishonest statements about fictional entities, and you insist that "the Left" is a fictional entity.

So you're swatting at shadows.
I'm sorry, IC, but I just can't be around you right now. :(
You aren't. You're in Yorkshire.

Seriously, dude; I hadn't pegged you as gratuitiously dramatic. But this seems more than a little theatrical, to say the least. That you're fainting at the mere thought of somebody who has a different view from yours seems a little...what's the word? "Fragile," maybe. I know that the Woke are like that, but I didn't peg you as a Wokie. They faint at the hearing of mere words, or at the mere thought of ever being contradicted. They call it "verbal violence" or "microaggressions," and swoon like they've been beaten with a hammer, playing for sympathy.

But I had you figured as somebody far more durable.

Still, conversation's always optional to both parties, so...
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:02 am "Wokism is the new white supremacism".

Who is more obsessed with 'race' than wokies? Who bleats ad nauseum that it's a 'great privilege' to be born white? Who decides what 'inclusion' entails ('included' in 'what' exactly?)? Who assumes that 'white' people are the 'default humans' and that it's up to them to 'bestow gifts' on lesser beings because they need 'extra help'? How magnanimous of wokies to kindly give 'lesser mortals' permission to be 'included' in the human race...
My first thought when reading what you wrote is that I was dealing with a quite knotty topic and that I needed to unravel the terms before I could make sense of it. I think I understand what you are trying to get at, but I think the comparison fails for a few reasons. I'll try to explain.

First, white supremacism has to be addressed. White supremacism is, or was, a European category and is tightly bound up in a former anthropology. That is, European man saw himself as different and as superior when anthropological comparisons were made to the peoples he had discovered primarily in the Age of Discovery. The philosophy of colonialism, if I could apply that term, was based in this anthropology.

The fact of the matter is that up until very very recently an average European, and certainly elite Europeans (Aldous Huxley comes to mind) nearly universally saw themselves and interpreted themselves through these anthropological lenses, though they were lenses modified by modernity and modern views. I refer to the Interwar writing of Huxley (for example Proper Studies: The Proper Study of Mankind Is Man) because it reveals a general view of European man that was common and accepted. That view involved a sense of social and cultural superiority -- though when I employ the word 'superiority' I feel that I am using a dangerous and contaminated word. Inevitably, to refer to something as *superior* to another is potentially, in our present, to implicate oneself in controversy. I can say that one car is superior to another, or one novelist is superior to another, but if I were to make comparisons between one culture and another I would be tending toward that fraught territory.

And as we are all aware it has become completely thought-criminal to compare one human being or one race to any other. We must recognize (this is my own view) that we are dealing in applied thought-control when we ourselves edit our own thoughts or perceptions and impose on ourselves a (let's say) "politically correct view". Now, why is this? (You might think that by broaching this I am defending a supremacist view but that is not the case. My largest concern is about how thought-control functions today).

To examine these questions is, I admit, to enter a difficult territory. And the first point I'd make is there. And what is that point? That it has been made deeply problematic to think in certain terms that have been vilified and are felt to be *unthinkable thought*.

Now the question is How did this come about? It is here that the issue of "wokism", to use a very imperfect and far too general term, can be brought into the examination. At an essential point one must examine the imposed doctrines and ideology of egalitarianism, and then its modern derivative Equality, Diversity & Inclusion in order to expose the contrast between one ideological assertion and another that countermands it.

So let's say that for a set of generally pretty good reasons the doctrines of supremacism were challenged and contradicted, and we know that a great deal of this shift came about in the aftermath of the Second World War. That is, as a reaction against Nazi and Fascist doctrines. As against those ideologies -- really a set of anthropological assertions -- liberal doctrines grounded in Liberal philosophy were established as the *right & proper* ones.

Wokism and let's say hyper-egalitarianism (finding the right words and terms is difficult and also fraught), though grounded sensibly in at least something liberally defensible, have been modified or is the word distorted? So it seems that all previously defensible categories, categories of perception and understanding that made sense to our forefathers let's say, have now become submerged in guilty shadows. One is forced, to the degree that one accept the tenets of Wokism and hyper-egalitarianism, to quite literally turn against oneself, against one's culture and also against one's civilization. What once could be described (and certainly was described) as the *glorious accomplishments of Occidental civilization* cannot now be seen nor described in such terms. One literally turns against oneself. One is forced, to the degree that one internalizes the doctrine, to undermine one's own validity and, in a definite sense, one's *right to exist*.

Wokism is, at least if seen from the angle I am establishing here, a complex self-consuming ideology deeply rooted (?) in a psychology of self-negation. This seems to me a really interesting territory to explore. But it is, beyond all doubt, extremely fraught.
Who is more obsessed with 'race' than wokies?
Obviously this is very true. And may I suggest that the doctrines of wokism attempt to get hold of and employ the most devastating tools that they can gain access to? That is to say, one's very self-identification. It is easy to see this if we choose an example far outside of our own identification. One possible is, say, Japanese culture, Japanese civilization, and Japanese being at a physical (somatic) level. Which of these identifications would you (for example) allow? and which would you be forced (if you were forced) to deny?

My point is that when one examines "cultural identification" one inevitably arrives at the frontier where self-identification is, in fact, physical and somatic. I will not belabor this point and I hope, at least, that I have exposed the problematic here. But the point? For us -- if we are European or European descended -- we are not allowed our identifications. Or our identifications have become extremely problematized. And I can submit (for the sake that it is interesting and the topic is very interesting) a very recent book by Kathleen Belew and Ramón A. Gutiérrez titled A Field Guide to White Supremacy. (They are actually the editors and the book is comprised of 19 different essays by those who you might, and we might, define as "Wokies".)

Here is the blurb:
Hate, racial violence, exclusion, and racist laws receive breathless media coverage, but such attention focuses on distinct events that gain our attention for twenty-four hours. The events are presented as episodic one-offs, unfortunate but uncanny exceptions perpetrated by lone wolves, extremists, or individuals suffering from mental illness—and then the news cycle moves on. If we turn to scholars and historians for background and answers, we often find their knowledge siloed in distinct academic subfields, rarely connecting current events with legal histories, nativist insurgencies, or centuries of misogynist, anti-Black, anti-Latino, anti-Asian, and xenophobic violence. But recent hateful actions are deeply connected to the past—joined not only by common perpetrators, but by the vast complex of systems, histories, ideologies, and personal beliefs that comprise white supremacy in the United States.

Gathering together a cohort of researchers and writers, A Field Guide to White Supremacy provides much-needed connections between violence present and past. This book illuminates the career of white supremacist and patriarchal violence in the United States, ranging across time and impacted groups in order to provide a working volume for those who wish to recognize, understand, name, and oppose that violence. The Field Guide is meant as an urgent resource for journalists, activists, policymakers, and citizens, illuminating common threads in white supremacist actions at every scale, from hate crimes and mass attacks to policy and law. Covering immigration, antisemitism, gendered violence, lynching, and organized domestic terrorism, the authors reveal white supremacy as a motivating force in manifold parts of American life. The book also offers a sampling of some of the most recent scholarship in this area in order to spark broader conversations between journalists and their readers, teachers and their students, and activists and their communities.
I got through 1/2 of this book yet I admit to reading it, to a strong degree, against its own grain. That is, I felt I could discern in it a core ideology of radical egalitarianism and much that is expressed through the (Maoist) slogan "equality, diversity, and inclusion".
Who bleats ad nauseum that it's a 'great privilege' to be born white?
In essence? Those who see Occidental and European attainment as evidence of criminality, or so contaminated by criminality and evil that self-identification is rendered highly problematic.
Who decides what 'inclusion' entails ('included' in 'what' exactly?)?
Since 'inclusion' is a term linked to 'diversity', and if the term diversity is examined closely, the term can be seen for what it in fact is: an attitude or ideology to end diversity and exclusiveness. Things that are diverse and different are by definition diverse. But to force them into proximity, or to blend one diverse thing with another, is in fact to destroy what is diverse. This is not a defense of social separation! It is simply an examination of a sort of Orwellian usage.

Inclusion will mean what those who operate and wield the doctrine or ideology desire it to mean, because as I say it is actually akin to a weapon (or a tool if you wish a softer term).
Who assumes that 'white' people are the 'default humans' and that it's up to them to 'bestow gifts' on lesser beings because they need 'extra help'?
You would have to modify your sentence a bit for it to make sense to genuine Marxists. Not *default humans* but historical beneficiaries of *oppressive* and *exploitive* historical activities which are, let's say, noticed as still operative in our present systems -- systemic injustice, systemic oppression, systemic impoverishment.

What was attained criminally must be offered up or *returned* to those from whom it was taken. This is the inner logic of Marxian ideology.
How magnanimous of wokies to kindly give 'lesser mortals' permission to be 'included' in the human race...
I'm unsure how to comment on this or what to say. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

In any case the actual issue in all of this, the really important questions, involve a close examination of the internal, perhaps cloaked or invisible doctrines that operate in Wokism and Critical Theory generally. It requires nearly a master metaphysician to see the core ideas at work.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 9:53 am I don't care if someone is a Liberal, Leftist, Democrat, Marxists or even Peter Kropotkin; if they say something funny, I'll laugh.
I am uncertain if it is exactly funny, but our cat barfed up a hairball yesterday. I thought: is the non-god who doesn't exist and can't exist fucking with me again?!?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:07 pm

I hadn't pegged you as gratuitiously dramatic.
I'm glad to hear it.
I didn't peg you as a Wokie
Again, I am pleased to have avoided so much pegging.
Still, conversation's always optional to both parties, so...
And it's not as if you are short of other people to lie to, is it?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Immanuel Can »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:02 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:25 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 1:45 am

Wokism is the new white supremasism.
That's an odd claim, unless you mean that it was created by, and is now primarily sponsored by, white liberals...which would be true, but it's hardly proof of their "white supremacism." Wokism might be evidence of their self-loathing racism against 'whites,' and against the South East Asian and the Chinese...they certainly seem to have complete contempt for all those folks. Along with sometimes being anti-semitic, as well, as the Democrat "Pack" has shown to be...

But I really can't see "white supremacism" in any of that. Can you help me see it?
Who is more obsessed with 'race' than wokies?
True enough. Nobody is.
Who bleats ad nauseum that it's a 'great privilege' to be born white?
Wokies, of course.
Who decides what 'inclusion' entails ('included' in 'what' exactly?)?
The Woke would like to. But of course, they don't want anybody who is actually different from their ideology to be "included." They're not THAT "inclusive"... :wink:
Who assumes that 'white' people are the 'default humans' and that it's up to them to 'bestow gifts' on lesser beings because they need 'extra help'?How magnanimous of wokies to kindly give 'lesser mortals' permission to be 'included' in the human race...
Okay, I see your point now.

Wokism is a kind of white-Leftist-supremacism: yes, you are correct; it is. And I would suggest that maybe the reason it's not instantly pegged as that, by minorities like many black or indigenous folks for whom these white Wokies claim to speak, is that collusion promises them freebies and privileges of their own, if only they're surrender the agenda and follow the lead of the white Lefties. The promised money's too good in victim culture to give up any pretensions to victim status. But at the end of the day, the Wokies aren't giving them much; promises, yes, but little delivery. The neighbourhoods that followed the Wokies through the riots are not nicer, better, richer, safer neighbourhoods today than they were before the Wokies came. They're immeasurably worse, more run-down, more miserable and more unliveable. And the millions donated to causes like BLM have failed to trickle down to even one such neighbourhood. Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Atlanta, Kenosha, Portland, San Fran...all are immeasurably worse today for the rabid activities of the Wokies "liberating" them on behalf of "minorities." And yet, the game of "white Wokies will set you free" continues.

Fair enough.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:37 pm
Still, conversation's always optional to both parties, so...
And it's not as if you are short of other people to lie to, is it?
Something doesn't become a "lie" simply because you can't stand to hear it, and faint at the very sound of it. It only becomes a "lie" if it's both untrue and believed to be untrue by the speaker.

Of course, neither condition obtains.
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Gary Childress »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:17 pm
How magnanimous of wokies to kindly give 'lesser mortals' permission to be 'included' in the human race...
I'm unsure how to comment on this or what to say. I am not sure I understand what you mean.

In any case the actual issue in all of this, the really important questions, involve a close examination of the internal, perhaps cloaked or invisible doctrines that operate in Wokism and Critical Theory generally. It requires nearly a master metaphysician to see the core ideas at work.
I read her statement as inclusion cannot exist without exclusion. If someone needs to be included, then there need to be those who aren't. Otherwise, the whole ethereal dance falls apart and loses its raison d'être. Then those referred to as "woke" would need to find new careers and learn new things in order to keep their salaries and credentials as "teachers". Personally, I try to steer clear of that whole milieu. I just deal with the results as they deal with mine. If I knew the "right" way to do anything, I'd be lecturing somewhere. In the meantime, I'm just waiting for the windbags to figure it out on their own and retire. It's a bit like living with militarism. You have to wait for the last victory parade to pass by before the heroes decide to retire. Of course, they're usually looking for reasons to have another victory parade because they remember how fun the last one was. :|
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:49 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:37 pm
Still, conversation's always optional to both parties, so...
And it's not as if you are short of other people to lie to, is it?
Something doesn't become a "lie" simply because you can't stand to hear it, and faint at the very sound of it. It only becomes a "lie" if it's both untrue and believed to be untrue by the speaker.

Of course, neither condition obtains.
I can't speak for Harbal but I just can't stand hearing lies. It does get irritating after a while.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:49 pm
Harbal wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:37 pm
And it's not as if you are short of other people to lie to, is it?
Something doesn't become a "lie" simply because you can't stand to hear it, and faint at the very sound of it. It only becomes a "lie" if it's both untrue and believed to be untrue by the speaker.

Of course, neither condition obtains.
I can't speak for Harbal but I just can't stand hearing lies. It does get irritating after a while.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
:D Well, I can see that what you mean is that you can't stand being challenged or contradicted. You want the world to bow to your mere opinions, and people to line up with your prejudices, I guess. Because short of that, you don't accuse your opponents of "lying" when they contradict you, and when you have absolutely no knowledge of whether they believe what they say or not.

I would invite you to disillusion yourself from the belief that your loyalty to truth is very great. It's more like your loyalty to not being challenged or required to prove anything. It's adolescent. Very Woke, actually...
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Harbal »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:17 pm European man saw himself as different and as superior when anthropological comparisons were made to the peoples he had discovered primarily in the Age of Discovery.
Yes, the age of discovery was certainly the best time to discover things.
To examine these questions is, I admit, to enter a difficult territory.
You are so intrepid, Alexis. :shock:
Gary Childress
Posts: 8117
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Gary Childress »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:59 pm
Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:49 pm
Something doesn't become a "lie" simply because you can't stand to hear it, and faint at the very sound of it. It only becomes a "lie" if it's both untrue and believed to be untrue by the speaker.

Of course, neither condition obtains.
I can't speak for Harbal but I just can't stand hearing lies. It does get irritating after a while.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
:D Well, I can see that what you mean is that you can't stand being challenged or contradicted. You want the world to bow to your mere opinions, and people to line up with your prejudices, I guess. Because short of that, you don't accuse your opponents of "lying" when they contradict you, and when you have absolutely no knowledge of whether they believe what they say or not.

I would invite you to disillusion yourself from the belief that your loyalty to truth is very great. It's more like your loyalty to not being challenged or required to prove anything. It's adolescent. Very Woke, actually...

Touché. I give you the golden guppy award. I'm just a sturgeon, waiting for the chum you create. :|
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:49 pm
Something doesn't become a "lie" simply because you can't stand to hear it,
No, it usually becomes a lie by virtue of leaving your mouth.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22257
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 3:07 pmTouché. I give you the golden guppy award. I'm just a sturgeon, waiting for the chum you create. :|
The truth is not your enemy, Gary. Your illusions are. The sooner you learn not to indulge them, the happier you'll soon be.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9558
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Harbal »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:52 pm
I can't speak for Harbal but I just can't stand hearing lies. It does get irritating after a while.
And have you noticed that the biggest liars are the ones obsessed with "the Left"?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 5146
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: humor and being ''WOKE''

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Gary Childress wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 2:52 pm I can't speak for Harbal but I just can't stand hearing lies. It does get irritating after a while.
The problem or the issue that Gary refers to here is certainly interesting. The first thing I would say is something like this: It is very hard to sift through the assertions and truth-claims that we are surrounded by and inundated with. We are aware that no matter where we look (politics, business, global affairs, and even among people we know who make personal assertions or have a specific idea about themselves, etc.) that we are significantly jaded and operate from a platform of suspicion. Isn't what I say true?

Now, this is a veritable existential problem. If we cannot trust the *world* in which we are subsumed I suggest that we live in an on-going existential crisis. And how far will our *distrust* go? What is the essential root of our profound distrust? I would say it is that the Meta-narrative that once provided order and sense to existence and indeed to our own self, has collapsed. I recognize that everyone knows this already (I mean those engaged with philosophy and postmodernism concepts) but still it needs to be said again.

So saying "I can't stand hearing lies" is actually a statement about truth. The one who recognizes a lie is asserting that he knows the truth.

But it is interesting to put forth the idea that, fundamentally, we do not know what is true. Or to put it another way the *platform* of certainty wobbles.

Note: I have added an 11th chapter (and another week) to my former 10-Week Dissolve-All-Doubts Email Course. It is now an 11-Week Dissolve-All-Doubts Email Course with 11 life changing sections. You are not going to want to miss out.
Post Reply