WOKE and identification...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I must admit, I am astonished about the immense
blind spot you have...and wonder why you are even
on a philosophy website....as you can't even see what
becoming aware does for you...

So, what is ''WOKISM?" I have defined it as 'becoming aware" as
that is the dictionary definition of "WOKE" and nothing more..
there is no political context in being ''WOKE" nor is there any
other context outside of its original context which is racial...

but the fact is that we practice ''WOKE" when engaging in
philosophy.... think about it.... in reading Nietzsche for the first time,
and the scales fall from one's eyes. and that is ''WOKE",
or think about Kant... he says that reading Hume interrupted
his "dogmatic slumbers" and what might one call that event?
of "interrupting one's dogmatic slumbers?" Why becoming
''WOKE", becoming aware of.... that is the essential description
of being ''WOKE"....And that is the essential description/or value
of philosophy.. to become aware of, to become ''WOKE" of
the human condition we find ourselves in.....the value in ''WOKISM" is
itself...the path to wisdom is through this becoming ''WOKE" or
becoming aware of the things behind existence...

for Plato, it is to become aware of the eternal forms, the
perfect circle that we dimly use as inspiration to create
our own pale imitation of a circle... to see, as Plato says,
the things outside of our cave.... and the parable of the cave
exactly brings us to being ''WOKE"..

''WOKISM" isn't about any sort of political action, but
about becoming aware of what is behind the curtain...
to explore what it means to be human, not the readers digest
version we get from the bible or in school, our so called education,
but what it actually means to be human...that is what ''WOKE" actually
means.. and in that new understanding of what it means to be human,
that is the true value of being ''WOKE"... its not about some
political agenda or some mystical actions, but about how we
see and experience the world... and the basic point is that we see
or interpret the world based on the evidence we see, but and this
is important... we also base our interpretation on our education,
our upbringing, our social-political place in the world...
mostly from our interpretation of what we see..
which is about our values, our beliefs, our sense of right and wrong...
thus a conservative can see the exact same action as a liberal,
and come up with a completely different understanding of that event...
and that difference is based on what one believes in one mind....
if one see's the world as dark and unpleasant as the conservative does,
to see the world as dangerous and full of death, then that is how they
experience the world.... where Kenosha is burned down and Portland
is burned down.. but the fact of the matter is, neither city was burned down...
and not even close... but to a conservative their mindset, their beliefs
influence what they see....they create their reality out of their
fear and apprehension about the world....they see an event and turn it into
the end of the world... the sky is falling, the sky is falling.. forevermore
for a conservative... for we interpret the world according to
our values and beliefs... the world looks like what we think it
looks like... we interpret the world based on our isms and ideologies...
the world is created inside of our head....and with every single
''WOKISM" we see the world differently...to become aware of is
to become aware of what is happening outside of our own head...
not to be trapped into seeing the world as unaware, not 'WOKE"

Not to see the world through the filtered lens of one's education
or childhood indoctrinations or one's political beliefs....

to become free of one's own's indoctrinations is the goal...and that
means to become "WOKE"... To become aware of.... that is
the entire goal of philosophy.. to become aware of ones values
and beliefs and if those values/beliefs are actually our values and
beliefs or are they beliefs and values indoctrinated into us as
children.... that is what it means to be ''WOKE"
To understand the values/beliefs that we hold are really
our values/beliefs and why those values/beliefs, and not
other values/beliefs?

From Socrates to today, the entire point of philosophy is
to have some sort of engagement with the values and beliefs
we hold and why those values/beliefs and not other values/beliefs?

and therein lies the value of being ''WOKE". To follow Socrates
maxim and know the "unexamined life isn't worth living"
and in engaging in that most fundamental quest, we are
engaged in being "WOKE", becoming aware of....

to know ourselves... that is part of being ''WOKE"
to know thyself...

Kropotkin

Jesus. How thick are you exactly??

[Immanuel Can]

So, what is ''WOKISM?" I have defined it as 'becoming aware" as
that is the dictionary definition of "WOKE" and nothing more..
there is no political context in being ''WOKE" nor is there any
other context outside of its original context which is racial...

You're absurdly naive...or else, you're simply dissembling. There is no other possibility.

The information is available to you. Read "Race Marxism," for a start, and you'll find it all in one place. And then you'll know how absurdly wrong you've been. I could prove it to you at length, too...but I think you don't want to know the truth.

And you're still not answering my very direct question: what are the tangible benefits that Wokeness has produced for society or humanity? And it there are none (which is true...there are none), then on what basis do you recommend people to become "woke"?

Answer. Or dry up. Because we all know you're faking it right now.

[Peter Kropotkin]

So, what is ''WOKISM?" I have defined it as 'becoming aware" as
that is the dictionary definition of "WOKE" and nothing more..
there is no political context in being ''WOKE" nor is there any
other context outside of its original context which is racial...

You're absurdly naive...or else, you're simply dissembling. There is no other possibility.

The information is available to you. Read "Race Marxism," for a start, and you'll find it all in one place. And then you'll know how absurdly wrong you've been. I could prove it to you at length, too...but I think you don't want to know the truth.

And you're still not answering my very direct question: what are the tangible benefits that Wokeness has produced for society or humanity? And it there are none (which is true...there are none), then on what basis do you recommend people to become "woke"?

Answer. Or dry up. Because we all know you're faking it right now.

K: I have already answered that question.. you just can't see it...
and for that, you need to become ''WOKE" or aware of...
just like in philosophy.... just like Kant and his awaking from
his "dogmatic slumbers" that is the value of being ''WOKE"...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

Looks like you're going to need to rewrite that article because the Wikipedia people don't seem to understand what "woke" means.

[Iwannaplato]

I must admit, I am astonished about the immense
blind spot you have...and wonder why you are even
on a philosophy website....as you can't even see what
becoming aware does for you...

That is NOT what woke means in contemporary sociology/politics/slang. It indicates one has specific political beliefs.

It's contemporary use is also cultural appropriation, since it was originally used by african-americans and had to do with knowing where it was safe to travel, stay, shop, etc. for african americans.

So, what is ''WOKISM?" I have defined it as 'becoming aware" as
that is the dictionary definition of "WOKE" and nothing more..
there is no political context in being ''WOKE" nor is there any
other context outside of its original context which is racial...

That's great if you want to define the word idiosyncratically. But then you are talking about something other than what most people identifying as woke mean.

but the fact is that we practice ''WOKE" when engaging in
philosophy.... think about it.... in reading Nietzsche for the first time,
and the scales fall from one's eyes. and that is ''WOKE",
or think about Kant... he says that reading Hume interrupted
his "dogmatic slumbers" and what might one call that event?
of "interrupting one's dogmatic slumbers?" Why becoming
''WOKE", becoming aware of.... that is the essential description
of being ''WOKE"....And that is the essential description/or value
of philosophy.. to become aware of, to become ''WOKE" of
the human condition we find ourselves in.....the value in ''WOKISM" is
itself...the path to wisdom is through this becoming ''WOKE" org
becoming aware of the things behind existence...

Woke college students would be shocked to find you advocating for reading the sexist, white male Nietzsche. And then only using white male philosophers to describe your version of Wokism.

[Immanuel Can]

K: I have already answered that question.. you just can't see it...

Invisible answers don't count.

Answer the question.

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: I have already answered that question.. you just can't see it...

Invisible answers don't count.

Answer the question.

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

K: I have already answered that question.. you just can't see it...

Invisible answers don't count.

Answer the question.

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Invisible answers don't count.

Answer the question.

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

They are phonies. They don't have an 'actual' cause (and aren't deep or interested enough to find one) so they invent 'causes' which take no more effort than writing a couple of sentences on twitter and throwing around a string of stock insults and buzzwords. I still haven't worked out what motivates them. Probably self-adoration and a deep-seated belief that they are better than the rest of the human race. The evidence certainly overwhelmingly shows that to be the case.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Invisible answers don't count.

Answer the question.

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

K: thus under your theory, we should not engage in philosophy
or theology or ART, literature, aesthetics, metaphysics,
or political theory..... you can become ''WOKE" and god forbid,
you might become aware of, or conscious of idea's and thoughts
that you never dreamed possible...

becoming aware of, has its own value...and its own worth...
the exact same value as philosophy... and I can't imagine
as I have suggested before, that you would even want to
be on a philosophy website because you might, despite
your best efforts, to become aware of, conscious of
matters that lay beyond your current comprehension...

to become ''WOKE"....

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

to become ''WOKE"....

is not the same as to become aware.
Not originally and not in its current usage.

[Immanuel Can]

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

They are phonies. They don't have an 'actual' cause (and aren't deep or interested enough to find one) so they invent 'causes' which take no more effort than writing a couple of sentences on twitter and throwing around a string of stock insults and buzzwords. I still haven't worked out what motivates them. Probably self-adoration and a deep-seated belief that they are better than the rest of the human race. The evidence certainly overwhelmingly shows that to be the case.

Well, on this we get along. (You can go back to hating me later, and I won't hold it against you. )

I think there's a bunch of motives, but you've hit a couple of them, for sure. I know a lot of Wokies, and I would say their motives range as follows:

1. Some are sincerely foolish enough to be convinced they're promoting a better, more compassionate society, even though there's no evidence they are, and even though Wokie methods are perverse and destructive.

2. Some are what you suggest: virtue-signallers who love to think of themselves as good, or as "advocates for the oppressed," or as campaigning for "equity" against "systemic prejudice," and so forth. But they do absolutely no good for anybody, and spend all their time preening.

3. Some are opportunists: they see that joining "the Cause" will get them ahead with the social crowd they know, or that being a "protester" gives them a free license to loot and burn in a mob, with minimal chance to get singled out and stopped or charged. Some even think they can endear themselves to females this way. They all want freebies, and Big Government is the way they think they're going to get them.

Another group of the opportunists are the Big Government and Big Business functionaries, who along with Big Media see the social justice rhetoric as an opportunity to steer masses of people toward their purposes, to raise taxes, to create monopolies, and otherwise to increase their power and influence. Their focus is entirely on how promoting "climate action" or "sexual liberation" or "social justice" will allow them to move quietly into positions of greater, more sweeping control, and to extract more money from the masses. So ironically, these are the social justice aristocracy and social justice "capitalists," who are actually providing the funds and publicity to raise this stupid movement to its inflated and utterly undeserved public profile. But they do it for themselves.

4. Many are self-pitying. They prefer that their victim status to getting a job, or to having to achieve something, or to competing against others. They want a paternalistic Government to swoop in and rescue them, and provide them with things like social programs, a living wage, 'free' health care, etc., because they despair of being able to provide for themselves.

5. Some are predators. Groomers and perverts of various types are attracted to the movement, because they see it as being useful in promoting their particular cause, or giving them access to vulnerable others. Here, you find your trans- types, for example.

6. Some are genuinely mentally ill. We can have some pity for such. But they're not the less dangerous, for all that.

7. Then there are the vengeful. Resentment is the strongest common motive of all Wokies. The story they tell themselves is that they have been done wrong by some powerful group, who is enjoying good things that they are not getting. The mere presence of any achievement, excellence, superiority, betterment or higher income is, in their thinking, ample warrant for them to practice sheer covetousness and to take by violence what is not theirs, they have not earned, and they do not deserve -- and to do it as if they did.

8. But perhaps the largest category is that of the fearful. To run afoul of the social justice mob is to risk being mobbed. They'll dox, protest, bully, insult, demean, slander and abuse, and generally run terroristic campaigns against anybody who steps out of line, or anybody who seems to have fallen short of absolute, fanatical commitment to whatever new cause the mob has taken up. And ordinary people know that the cost of stepping out of line even a bit is being labelled a "racist," a "Nazi," a "Trumpist," a "Right Winger," and so on, and having one's job taken away, one's family harassed, one's friends and associates afraid to be compared with one, and so on. Social justice is a bully movement: it unapologetically runs on power, not on truth.

The crowd is made up of all these, and so it's not really easy to say that there's any single motive in common. What can you say about a movement that claims to advocate for women's rights, gay rights and trans rights at the same time, or for homosexuals and Islamophobia at the same time? they don't even notice that these things conflict, or if they do, they don't care: because their only common concern is to get a "slice" of whatever "pie" can be wrested from others.

Ironically, the people who join mostly get nothing for having joined. The BLM movement is very instructive, in this regard, and is quite typical. The leaders of it were all self-declared "trained Marxists" like P. Cullors, who enraged mobs to burn cities, and raked in the donations, and then bought herself a bunch of houses. Not a single cent of the millions donated to BLM by sympathetic idiots actually got to the suffering communities of Baltimore, or Portland, or Chicago...and their residents are now left with burned neighbourhoods, businesses pulling out, destroyed communities, and no prospect of help from anywhere...especially from their own elected officials.

The same could be said of all Woke "causes." You can measure their real effect downstream, at the people for whom they claim to advocate. And they leave them all far worse than before. The elitist Wokies get unbelievably rich and powerful, and everybody else eats dirt.

So it's one mixed batch. But ain't none of it good.

[Immanuel Can]

K: I have already answered that question... but if you were to
be aware of, or possibly conscious, you would already know
the answer...but not being ''WOKE", being asleep, unconscious, uniformed,
you don't know nor will you ever know the answer.. that is
the value of being ''WOKE" you become aware of, conscious
of the reality around you....

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

K: thus under your theory,...

No theory. Just a question: what have the Wokies achieved? C'mon, K....you must surely be able to point to ONE thing, no?

... philosophy
or theology or ART, literature, aesthetics, metaphysics,
or political theory...

Wokeness has given us nothing in ANY of these areas. If it had, you'd be pointing it out, wouldn't you?

And in political theory, the one area where it's been active at all, it's been worse than useless; it's actually destroyed critical thought in the name of its phony "critical consciousness," which is nothing but old Marxism in a new package. There are NO successful Wokie political projects, and all the old-school Marxist ones just kill people.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If these men who are actually 'biological women' get pregnancy envy, then why don't they just get pregnant thenselves? Simple...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Hilarious! So your answer is, "If you were woke, you'd know how wonderful wokeness is."

But that means there's no objective evidence for any benefit of wokeness. There's only the propaganda of Wokeness itself: standing back and looking at it like an independent observer, there's not one good thing to see about it. Rationality is against wokeness.

But I think it's even worse than that, as your non-response indicates. It's not even possible for a wokie, in woke language, speaking to another wokie, to point to a single good thing about wokeness. There isn't even the pretension of an actual answer, no candidate achievement to which the potential admirers of wokeness can even be directed.

QED, I'd say.

They are phonies. They don't have an 'actual' cause (and aren't deep or interested enough to find one) so they invent 'causes' which take no more effort than writing a couple of sentences on twitter and throwing around a string of stock insults and buzzwords. I still haven't worked out what motivates them. Probably self-adoration and a deep-seated belief that they are better than the rest of the human race. The evidence certainly overwhelmingly shows that to be the case.

Well, on this we get along. (You can go back to hating me later, and I won't hold it against you. )

I think there's a bunch of motives, but you've hit a couple of them, for sure. I know a lot of Wokies, and I would say their motives range as follows:

1. Some are sincerely foolish enough to be convinced they're promoting a better, more compassionate society, even though there's no evidence they are, and even though Wokie methods are perverse and destructive.

2. Some are what you suggest: virtue-signallers who love to think of themselves as good, or as "advocates for the oppressed," or as campaigning for "equity" against "systemic prejudice," and so forth. But they do absolutely no good for anybody, and spend all their time preening.

3. Some are opportunists: they see that joining "the Cause" will get them ahead with the social crowd they know, or that being a "protester" gives them a free license to loot and burn in a mob, with minimal chance to get singled out and stopped or charged. Some even think they can endear themselves to females this way. They all want freebies, and Big Government is the way they think they're going to get them.

Another group of the opportunists are the Big Government and Big Business functionaries, who along with Big Media see the social justice rhetoric as an opportunity to steer masses of people toward their purposes, to raise taxes, to create monopolies, and otherwise to increase their power and influence. Their focus is entirely on how promoting "climate action" or "sexual liberation" or "social justice" will allow them to move quietly into positions of greater, more sweeping control, and to extract more money from the masses. So ironically, these are the social justice aristocracy and social justice "capitalists," who are actually providing the funds and publicity to raise this stupid movement to its inflated and utterly undeserved public profile. But they do it for themselves.

4. Many are self-pitying. They prefer that their victim status to getting a job, or to having to achieve something, or to competing against others. They want a paternalistic Government to swoop in and rescue them, and provide them with things like social programs, a living wage, 'free' health care, etc., because they despair of being able to provide for themselves.

5. Some are predators. Groomers and perverts of various types are attracted to the movement, because they see it as being useful in promoting their particular cause, or giving them access to vulnerable others. Here, you find your trans- types, for example.

6. Some are genuinely mentally ill. We can have some pity for such. But they're not the less dangerous, for all that.

7. Then there are the vengeful. Resentment is the strongest common motive of all Wokies. The story they tell themselves is that they have been done wrong by some powerful group, who is enjoying good things that they are not getting. The mere presence of any achievement, excellence, superiority, betterment or higher income is, in their thinking, ample warrant for them to practice sheer covetousness and to take by violence what is not theirs, they have not earned, and they do not deserve -- and to do it as if they did.

8. But perhaps the largest category is that of the fearful. To run afoul of the social justice mob is to risk being mobbed. They'll dox, protest, bully, insult, demean, slander and abuse, and generally run terroristic campaigns against anybody who steps out of line, or anybody who seems to have fallen short of absolute, fanatical commitment to whatever new cause the mob has taken up. And ordinary people know that the cost of stepping out of line even a bit is being labelled a "racist," a "Nazi," a "Trumpist," a "Right Winger," and so on, and having one's job taken away, one's family harassed, one's friends and associates afraid to be compared with one, and so on. Social justice is a bully movement: it unapologetically runs on power, not on truth.

The crowd is made up of all these, and so it's not really easy to say that there's any single motive in common. What can you say about a movement that claims to advocate for women's rights, gay rights and trans rights at the same time, or for homosexuals and Islamophobia at the same time? they don't even notice that these things conflict, or if they do, they don't care: because their only common concern is to get a "slice" of whatever "pie" can be wrested from others.

Ironically, the people who join mostly get nothing for having joined. The BLM movement is very instructive, in this regard, and is quite typical. The leaders of it were all self-declared "trained Marxists" like P. Cullors, who enraged mobs to burn cities, and raked in the donations, and then bought herself a bunch of houses. Not a single cent of the millions donated to BLM by sympathetic idiots actually got to the suffering communities of Baltimore, or Portland, or Chicago...and their residents are now left with burned neighbourhoods, businesses pulling out, destroyed communities, and no prospect of help from anywhere...especially from their own elected officials.

The same could be said of all Woke "causes." You can measure their real effect downstream, at the people for whom they claim to advocate. And they leave them all far worse than before. The elitist Wokies get unbelievably rich and powerful, and everybody else eats dirt.

So it's one mixed batch. But ain't none of it good.

I'm pretty sure he's pretending to have me on 'ignore'. All the wokies on here do that. I wonder why...