WOKE and identification...

[Peter Kropotkin]

Reading this thread, the anti Kropotkin part
and I am reminded of this joke:

A teenager rolled up to the Mexican border on a bike...
He had a sack of sand in his hand.

"What's in the sack?" asked the border patrol officer

"Just sand," said the kid.

The officer didn't believe him, so he opened the sack up to find just sand. The officer dumped the sack empty and dug through it but he only saw sand. He even took a sample to a lab to have it tested, but all signs showed it was pure sand.

Reluctantly, the officer let the kid go.

The next day, the same kid rolled up on his bike to the Mexican border with another sack in his hand.

Again, the officer asked what was in the bag. He searched through the bag and once again had the sack tested of its contents, but it was just sand.

The officer had no choice but to let the kid leave again.

This went on for years. The officer was sure that one day the kid would have something else in the sack, and eventually he drove himself to insanity. He was fired and became a heavy drinker.

One day, he was at the bar when the teenager who had been crossing the border everyday with the sack of sand sat down next to him.

The ex-border patrol officer looked at him and pleaded, "Look. All those times you were crossing the border, I know you were smuggling something! Please just tell me what it was and give me some peace at mind. I don't even work as a cop anymore!"

The kid said,

"Bikes."

K: it is the bikes... that is what ''WOKE" is, the bikes...
and that is its value....but only if you are paying attention...
if you are ''WOKE"'... then you get it...you are the border officer..
wondering what is being smuggled..

Kropotkin

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Reading this thread, the anti Kropotkin part
and I am reminded of this joke:

A teenager rolled up to the Mexican border on a bike...
He had a sack of sand in his hand.

"What's in the sack?" asked the border patrol officer

"Just sand," said the kid.

The officer didn't believe him, so he opened the sack up to find just sand. The officer dumped the sack empty and dug through it but he only saw sand. He even took a sample to a lab to have it tested, but all signs showed it was pure sand.

Reluctantly, the officer let the kid go.

The next day, the same kid rolled up on his bike to the Mexican border with another sack in his hand.

Again, the officer asked what was in the bag. He searched through the bag and once again had the sack tested of its contents, but it was just sand.

The officer had no choice but to let the kid leave again.

This went on for years. The officer was sure that one day the kid would have something else in the sack, and eventually he drove himself to insanity. He was fired and became a heavy drinker.

One day, he was at the bar when the teenager who had been crossing the border everyday with the sack of sand sat down next to him.

The ex-border patrol officer looked at him and pleaded, "Look. All those times you were crossing the border, I know you were smuggling something! Please just tell me what it was and give me some peace at mind. I don't even work as a cop anymore!"

The kid said,

"Bikes."

K: it is the bikes... that is what ''WOKE" is, the bikes...
and that is its value....but only if you are paying attention...
if you are ''WOKE"'... then you get it...you are the border officer..
wondering what is being smuggled..

Kropotkin

You 'identify' as 'Peter Kropotnik', hence the 'signature' you feel compelled to put at the end of each post (just in case we miss the username at the top and wonder who wrote this marvel of logic and critical thinking ). I suppose that means you are actually 'Peter Kroptnik' and anyone who argues otherwise is guilty of a 'hate crime'...

[Immanuel Can]

if you are ''WOKE"'... then you get it...

Apparently not. You don't even know where your "Wokie" ideology comes from. And you can't find even one good thing it has done.

So I think you're the sand in the bag. You're getting carted around places, and know nothing about it.

[Iwannaplato]

Reading this thread, the anti Kropotkin part
and I am reminded of this joke:

There are people who at least try to respond to the posts made by other people. Some say hey but X is true because of Y or whatever and these people discuss Y, discuss the connection between Y and X. That kind of thing.

Then there are people who can't or won't actually engage with what people say.

They reassert their position.

Or assert things as if these are responses. IOW they write faux responses.

Perhaps they can't really engage with other people. Perhaps they see interactions only as times to express themselves. Other people are a kind of audience.....only.

On the internet it's hard to know which is the case.

[Immanuel Can]

Reading this thread, the anti Kropotkin part
and I am reminded of this joke:

There are people who at least try to respond to the posts made by other people. Some say hey but X is true because of Y or whatever and these people discuss Y, discuss the connection between Y and X. That kind of thing.

Then there are people who can't or won't actually engage with what people say.

They reassert their position.

Or assert things as if these are responses. IOW they write faux responses.

Perhaps they can't really engage with other people. Perhaps they see interactions only as times to express themselves. Other people are a kind of audience.....only.

On the internet it's hard to know which is the case.

Have you also noticed that "Woke" exists and doesn't exist, at the same time.

A kind of "Schrodinger's Concept," if you will.

That is, when somebody is operating in self-congratulatory mode, they're happy to say, "I'm woke, you're not." And when they're in a mob, or even just proposing the topic as a postive, as in, "You should want to be woke," they're very happy to use the term, and they act as if it applies to something very real, and signals a deep, objective truth about the difference between the "sleeping" and "woke."

And then, as soon as you use the term negatively, or criticize the postion, they tell you to define it. Then they tell you your definition is wrong, so you are not really criticizing the objectively-real "wokeness" at all, and everything you say misses the point. And sometimes they go even further, and accuse you of having invented the whole term and concept "woke," and of deluding yourself that such a thing exists -- you're a "conspiracy thinker," they tell you, or you're in thrall to "right wing" ideology. There is no "woke."

But, of course, they know very well there is a "woke" ideology. Most of them don't know about its relation to Neo-Marxism, because most of them are just so happy to imagine they are personally "woke," (and that much better than everybody else, therefore) that they never look into it. The one thing they're not "woke" about is what "woke" really is.

[commonsense]

…
Kropotkin

Would it be fair to say that you have suggested the following:

The state/society shouldn’t identify the individual since neither it nor its children are harmed by self-identification.

When it comes to legality the state/society would have no standing in a court since it wasn’t harmed.

The world is not black and white, nor is good and evil, nor right and wrong, nor humans.

I would counter that the state/society can have whatever laws and norms that it has. No rationale or reason is necessary in the real world. In a democracy there’s a principle often followed: the majority rules. In a dictatorship, well, that’s why they call it a dictatorship. Any individual can be unofficially identified as something else.

The state/society doesn’t need to have standing in a court. It controls the laws and norms employed in courts of law and public opinion. It doesn’t matter if there is harm or not. It doesn’t matter whether the protection of children is really needed or is merely a cover story.

Humans are not black and white, but laws are. You either break them or you do not. Norms and taboos are just as clear. You either abide or you don’t.

[Peter Kropotkin]

…
Kropotkin

Would it be fair to say that you have suggested the following:

The state/society shouldn’t identify the individual since neither it nor its children are harmed by self-identification.

When it comes to legality the state/society would have no standing in a court since it wasn’t harmed.

The world is not black and white, nor is good and evil, nor right and wrong, nor humans.

I would counter that the state/society can have whatever laws and norms that it has. No rationale or reason is necessary in the real world. In a democracy there’s a principle often followed: the majority rules. In a dictatorship, well, that’s why they call it a dictatorship. Any individual can be unofficially identified as something else.

The state/society doesn’t need to have standing in a court. It controls the laws and norms employed in courts of law and public opinion. It doesn’t matter if there is harm or not. It doesn’t matter whether the protection of children is really needed or is merely a cover story.

Humans are not black and white, but laws are. You either break them or you do not. Norms and taboos are just as clear. You either abide or you don’t.

K: as I have very limited time, here goes an abridge post...
laws are not so black and white.. I point out that slavery
was legal and so was the Holocaust.. in fact, hiding Jews
from the concentration camps was illegal.. saving people
from death was illegal... there is nothing clear about the laws,
nor is there anything clear about norms and taboos,
as they change, quite regularly... I point out that within
the last 10 years, pot has gone from being a "evil" to
being legal in most states.. that is a norm that has
quite dramatically changed... and we see similar
changes in norm and taboo's in regards to homosexuality
and interracial marriages... in my lifetime, marriage
between whites and blacks were illegal in some southern
states.. VIR and TENN...for example...norms and values
change quite often and quite quickly... they are not set
in stone... and the laws, they too are values of the times...
and they too change quick often... or have you forgotten
that slavery is illegal in America... after being legal in
America for over 250 years.. and women are no longer
considered to be the husband property... that is a norm
that has changed...

Kropotkin

[commonsense]

K: as I have very limited time, here goes an abridge post...
laws are not so black and white.. I point out that slavery
was legal and so was the Holocaust.. in fact, hiding Jews
from the concentration camps was illegal.. saving people
from death was illegal... there is nothing clear about the laws,
nor is there anything clear about norms and taboos,
as they change, quite regularly... I point out that within
the last 10 years, pot has gone from being a "evil" to
being legal in most states.. that is a norm that has
quite dramatically changed... and we see similar
changes in norm and taboo's in regards to homosexuality
and interracial marriages... in my lifetime, marriage
between whites and blacks were illegal in some southern
states.. VIR and TENN...for example...norms and values
change quite often and quite quickly... they are not set
in stone... and the laws, they too are values of the times...
and they too change quick often... or have you forgotten
that slavery is illegal in America... after being legal in
America for over 250 years.. and women are no longer
considered to be the husband property... that is a norm
that has changed...

Kropotkin

Chew on this: change isn’t lack of clarity.

When and where there was a law that pot was illegal it was clear that pot was illegal. When and where there’s a law making pot legal, it’s clear that pot is legal .

When there is confusion over a norm, you don’t have a norm.