racism and being 'WOKE"

[Immanuel Can]

why would I deal with a pretend question like "what if"

A person of even marginal intelligence can achieve this great feat. I perhaps have a higher estimation of your potential than you would wish me to have, given your response.

But there it stands, until you figure it all out.

[Consul]

One of the many charges against being "WOKE"
is that being 'WOKE" is somehow, never exactly
explained how but is somehow being or is racist....

ok, let us explore that idea.... first question is this...
how is being 'WOKE" being racist?

I would guess from various answers given over the last year,
being 'WOKE' is racist because it is about being aware
of racism against blacks or minorities.....

this would imply that the 'WOKE" person is personally
racist against white people... that we are racist because
we don't put white people first...
that, I believe is the implication of the charge against
"WOKE" ...

No, the charge against wokeism in the form of critical race theory and critical whiteness studies is that they operate themselves with racial prejudice and stereotypes. Ironically, many critical-whiteness theorists are whites such as these two ladies:

"The relevant point for now is that all white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce."

(Applebaum, Barbara. Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2010. p. 16)
———
"[A] positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy."

(DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018. p. 149)

[Peter Kropotkin]

One of the many charges against being "WOKE"
is that being 'WOKE" is somehow, never exactly
explained how but is somehow being or is racist....

ok, let us explore that idea.... first question is this...
how is being 'WOKE" being racist?

I would guess from various answers given over the last year,
being 'WOKE' is racist because it is about being aware
of racism against blacks or minorities.....

this would imply that the 'WOKE" person is personally
racist against white people... that we are racist because
we don't put white people first...
that, I believe is the implication of the charge against
"WOKE" ...

No, the charge against wokeism in the form of critical race theory and critical whiteness studies is that they operate themselves with racial prejudice and stereotypes. Ironically, many critical-whiteness theorists are whites such as these two ladies:

"The relevant point for now is that all white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce."

(Applebaum, Barbara. Being White, Being Good: White Complicity, White Moral Responsibility, and Social Justice Pedagogy. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2010. p. 16)
———
"[A] positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy."

(DiAngelo, Robin. White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Boston: Beacon Press, 2018. p. 149)

K: CRT is really just a "critical" look at the institutional racism that
has been in America since the very first days... or perhaps you
have forgotten that blacks were considered to be, for tax purposes,
3/5 of a white person.. that is institutional racism... and that
is the point of CRT... To critically think about our most
basic assumptions... which is to say, critical thinking is really
what philosophy is supposed to be...

there was an entire school based on this idea of critical thinking
about such basic assumptions... the Frankfurt school was
such a idea...and the name of the school itself was
"The institute of Social Research" and it took as its
basic function, to "improve understanding of society by
integrating all the major social sciences, including
geography, economics, sociology, history, poly sci,
anthropology, and psychology''...

to critically think about what it means to be human...
and that is a good thing... and part of being human is our
reaction to others in regard to race, creed, color of the skin,
to investigate our superstitions, biases, prejudices and habits...
as part of "know thyself" and to know if we are bias or
prejudice against others for whatever reason....I too am
prejudice, bias against others... Young republicans...
they annoy me no end... and they get my deepest scorn...

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

...perhaps you have forgotten that blacks were considered to be, for tax purposes,
3/5 of a white person...

An easy mistake to make, for somebody who only knows one factoid and has no grasp of the historical context at all. But we can fix that.

Let's use an academic, pro-black source, shall we?


Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….” Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.” (https://www.blackpast.org/african-ameri ... tion-1787/)

In other words, 1-1 would have extended, not ended, slavery. It would have given more power to the Southern Democrat states that had, and wanted to keep slaves than to those that were aiming to abolish slavery altogether. Once again, the Democrats would have been able to use their slaves to increase their own political power and extend slavery.

You need to get your facts straight. That is, unless you're in favour of slavery.

...there was an entire school based on this idea of critical thinking
about such basic assumptions... the Frankfurt school was
such a idea...

Slavery was abolished in the Americas in 1865. The Frankfurt School was a group of Neo-Marxists who first appeared in Germany in 1923. It's not even possible your claim is true. Manifestly, the interest of TFS in slavery was zero. It had long been eliminated. Their interest was in rescuing Marxism from its obvious failures in relation to class, particularly in the German context, but later in their new location, Columbia University, USA. All Marx's predictions had gone wrong, and obviously so. Their interest was in salvaging some form of Marxism by reorienting it away from class, and switching to thing like race, in the hopes of still producing Marx's falsely-prophesied "great revolution," and still ushering in the Marxist utopia by other means.

Again, get your facts straight.

...to critically think about what it means to be human...

"Critical consciousness," not "critical thinking" was what the TFS and Wokism are all about. "Critical consciousness" means interpreting every event through a Neo-Marxist lens, and NEVER being critical of Marxism. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-consciousness/ In other words, it means "thoroughly indoctrinated."

Neo-Marxism claims that oppressor societies have "dehumanized" everyone, and that people can only be "humanized" by "critical consciousness," meaning by becoming Marxists. Other than that, they are sub-human or pre-human; and if they are resistant to Marxism, then they are on the side of "dehumanization," and thus evil, and not worthy of respect, a voice, rights or consideration. "Humanization," for them, is a process of induction into Marxism, just as CRT is exactly that. It's not interested in "humans" that have not been "humanized" by its indoctrinatory activities, except in the question of how to eliminate them, by education or by repression -- one way or the other.

What you need is to know something, actually, about the real history of your own movement, instead of taking the superficial propaganda about it at face value. Being a Woke-zombie doesn 't make you a virtuous person...it makes you just a new kind of 'brownshirt.' (You can look up that historical reference, too.)

[Peter Kropotkin]

...perhaps you have forgotten that blacks were considered to be, for tax purposes,
3/5 of a white person...

An easy mistake to make, for somebody who only knows one factoid and has no grasp of the historical context at all. But we can fix that.

Let's use an academic, pro-black source, shall we?


Often misinterpreted to mean that African Americans as individuals are considered three-fifths of a person or that they are three-fifths of a citizen of the U.S., the three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution of 1787) in fact declared that for purposes of representation in Congress, enslaved blacks in a state would be counted as three-fifths of the number of white inhabitants of that state.

The three-fifths clause was part of a series of compromises enacted by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The most notable other clauses prohibited slavery in the Northwest Territories and ended U.S. participation in the international slave trade in 1807. These compromises reflected Virginia Constitutional Convention delegate (and future U.S. President) James Madison’s observation that “…the States were divided into different interests not by their…size…but principally from their having or not having slaves.”

When Constitutional Convention delegate Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed that congressional representation be based on the total number of inhabitants of a state, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina agreed saying “blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites….” Pinckney’s statement was disingenuous since at the time he knew most blacks were enslaved in his state and none, slave or free, could vote or were considered equals of white South Carolinians. Other delegates including most notably Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania argued that he could not support equal representation because he “could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade…by allowing them [Southern states] a representation for their negroes.” (https://www.blackpast.org/african-ameri ... tion-1787/)

In other words, 1-1 would have extended, not ended, slavery. It would have given more power to the Southern Democrat states that had, and wanted to keep slaves than to those that were aiming to abolish slavery altogether. Once again, the Democrats would have been able to use their slaves to increase their own political power and extend slavery.

You need to get your facts straight. That is, unless you're in favour of slavery.

...there was an entire school based on this idea of critical thinking
about such basic assumptions... the Frankfurt school was
such a idea...

Slavery was abolished in the Americas in 1865. The Frankfurt School was a group of Neo-Marxists who first appeared in Germany in 1923. It's not even possible your claim is true. Manifestly, the interest of TFS in slavery was zero. It had long been eliminated. Their interest was in rescuing Marxism from its obvious failures in relation to class, particularly in the German context, but later in their new location, Columbia University, USA. All Marx's predictions had gone wrong, and obviously so. Their interest was in salvaging some form of Marxism by reorienting it away from class, and switching to thing like race, in the hopes of still producing Marx's falsely-prophesied "great revolution," and still ushering in the Marxist utopia by other means.

Again, get your facts straight.

...to critically think about what it means to be human...

"Critical consciousness," not "critical thinking" was what the TFS and Wokism are all about. "Critical consciousness" means interpreting every event through a Neo-Marxist lens, and NEVER being critical of Marxism. https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-critical-consciousness/ In other words, it means "thoroughly indoctrinated."

Neo-Marxism claims that oppressor societies have "dehumanized" everyone, and that people can only be "humanized" by "critical consciousness," meaning by becoming Marxists. Other than that, they are sub-human or pre-human; and if they are resistant to Marxism, then they are on the side of "dehumanization," and thus evil, and not worthy of respect, a voice, rights or consideration. "Humanization," for them, is a process of induction into Marxism, just as CRT is exactly that. It's not interested in "humans" that have not been "humanized" by its indoctrinatory activities, except in the question of how to eliminate them, by education or by repression -- one way or the other.

What you need is to know something, actually, about the real history of your own movement, instead of taking the superficial propaganda about it at face value. Being a Woke-zombie doesn 't make you a virtuous person...it makes you just a new kind of 'brownshirt.' (You can look up that historical reference, too.)

K:

The Three-Fifths Compromise
The Three-Fifths Compromise was reached among state delegates during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It determined that three out of every five slaves was counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxation. Before the Civil War, the Three-Fifths Compromise gave a disproportionate representation of slave states in the House of Representatives.
from perspectiveofchange.hms.harvard.edu

K: as advertised.... it was written into the constitution from the
very beginning...which is my point... and the point of CRT..
that racism was built into the American system of government...

as far as the Frankfurt group goes, so what if it is marxist..
the idea was to critically think about matters involving
politics or economics or whatever.. the starting point may have
been marxist, but that doesn't change the idea of critical thinking...
and I didn't make the idea about the Frankfurt school being about
slavery, you did, I said the Frankfurt school was about critical
thinking and it was.. CRT is about critical thinking, and
the idea of the Frankfurt school is to make aware the idea
that philosophy is best done with...critical thinking..
not to assume anything.. as you just did...

and as far as thinking like a neo-marxist.. I never said I
was Marxist.. I have made my political affiliation quite
clear... you are the one who is making assumptions
about CRT and Marxism and what the connection is...
in the past, I have been quite critical of classical Marxism..
I oppose the idea of class consciousness.. I don't think
the final stop is the creation of the one class idea...
I oppose the idea that human beings are simply dust
to be ground up in the idea of dialectical materialism..
that is exactly the same idea that negates and dehumanizes
people that capitalism has...

we have a lot of big ideas around that simply make human beings
a very small and insignificant part of existence... religion, communism,
capitalism, Nazism, Buddhism, nationalism, god....
and they all have the same problem.. they negate and dehumanize people...

If I have spiritual ancestors, they would be Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
Kazantzakis, Colin Wilson, William Barrett, Henry Adams.....
men who engaged in seeking out the individual, not the society
as a whole...seeking out what it means individually to be
human.... that is my starting point... not whatever you
are making up...

Kropotkin

[Immanuel Can]

as far as the Frankfurt group goes, so what if it is marxist..

It makes them the foolish followers of an ideology, not "critical thinkers" about reality. And it's an ideology that has murdered more people than any other in history, by orders of magnitude. So I'd say that matters a whole bunch.

CRT does not promote "critical thinking." It promotes what they call "critical consciousness," which means Marxist ideological filtering of everything. Or, as James Lindsay has put it so well, "Calling everything 'racist' until you control it."

That's a perfect description.

[phyllo]

The 3/5 compromise is about slaves. It's not about racism or anti black racism. Free blacks counted on par with free whites.

Just saying.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The woke, and those who are forever expressing their strong hostility towards them, can all get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, Peter. Don't let them drag you into their fight, just leave them to beat each other to death.

Umm, he wrote this thread. It has clearly hit a nerve with him because he keeps writing thread after thread on the same topic. And if it's of so little interest to you then why are you here expressing your 'non opinion' about it? It seems to me that you go to an awful lot of trouble to let everyone know that you have no opinion on anything--forever sitting on fences. Of course, that doesn't make you a 'nice' person. You've been letting the 'nice guy' veneer slip quite a bit lately.

[Harbal]

The woke, and those who are forever expressing their strong hostility towards them, can all get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, Peter. Don't let them drag you into their fight, just leave them to beat each other to death.

Umm, he wrote this thread. It has clearly hit a nerve with him because he keeps writing thread after thread on the same topic. And if it's of so little interest to you then why are you here expressing your 'non opinion' about it? It seems to me that you make an awful lot of trouble to let everyone know that you have no opinion on anything--forever sitting on fences. Of course, that doesn't make you a 'nice' person. You've been letting the 'nice guy' veneer slip quite a bit lately.

Okay, come on, out with it. What are you going to call me tonight?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

For some reason known only to themselves, wonkers love to stir the embers of division and resentment, particularly where there was previously none. The 'Iago' of modern politics. Shit-stirrers par excellence.

K: it has been stated quite clearly, that "wonkers" which
I am guessing is being 'WOKE" are racists, and as above said,

"stir the embers of division and resentment"

and yet, no proof of any kind as been offered to this...the statement
that to be "WOKE" is to be racist has been said, but no proof
has been offered...

my statements are philosophical in nature.. attempting to
gain insight into statements, such to 'WOKE is to be racist"

whereas the anti-'WOKE" crowd, simple makes statement
as if they are fact... "WOKERS are racists" a polemical
statement, a statement attempting to force agreement with
a position.. but that position, to be Anti-''WOKE"
is based on lie.. and until we actually understand what
'WOKE" is and how is it defined, but the anti-WOKE"
crowd has no interest in understanding or being philosophical,
they are just being polemical...

Kropotkin

How do you 'prove' that the sky is blue to a blind person? You are never going to see yourself as others see you, and you are far too vain to critique yourself objectively and honestly. If you could do 'that' then you wouldn't be a wonker...

[vegetariantaxidermy]

The woke, and those who are forever expressing their strong hostility towards them, can all get stuffed as far as I'm concerned, Peter. Don't let them drag you into their fight, just leave them to beat each other to death.

K: I appreciate your concern...it is rare I hear a positive word
around here.. but as I have stated, I am seeking out
the meaning of being ''WOKE"... as usual, everyone talks about it,
complains about it, but few actually wonder what it means..
or said another way, I am trying to get people to think
philosophical about how they think and how they talk..
I mostly hear statements without any facts to support them..
but that isn't philosophy... that is polemics..

Kropotkin

I haven't given the matter any deep thought, but this is how it seems to me. Those who are being complained about as "woke", seem to take the slightest thing they can present as an issue and go into a rant about it. It makes me wonder if they are more motivated by a need to create an enemy and go into battle than by defending anybody's rights. The problem then is that when anyone raises a legitimate point about inequality or unfair treatment, they are shouted down by the other lot, who yell "wokie" at them. I think this probably tends to make the reasonable among us roll our eyes and walk away. So what I'm saying is that I don't think the woke movement is doing the causes it claims to be fighting for any favours. They may even be playing right into the hands of genuine racists and homophobes.

Where's your evidence for that? When have I ever said anything that could possibly indicate that I'm against equal rights under the law? That I think racism is a good thing? That I support the murder of people in their own countries simply for the 'crime' of being born in that country? The root of my loathing for wonkers is that they don't give a flying rat's arse about any of these things. The whole point of wonkerism is the 'appearance' of caring without actually doing anything about it. They yearn for 'a cause' but can't think of any and couldn't be bothered anyway, so they invent 'causes' and 'enemies'-- hence their constant random and nonsensical flinging around of the 'r' and 'b' words. In their tiny brains this constitutes 'activism'.

[Harbal]

K: I appreciate your concern...it is rare I hear a positive word
around here.. but as I have stated, I am seeking out
the meaning of being ''WOKE"... as usual, everyone talks about it,
complains about it, but few actually wonder what it means..
or said another way, I am trying to get people to think
philosophical about how they think and how they talk..
I mostly hear statements without any facts to support them..
but that isn't philosophy... that is polemics..

Kropotkin

I haven't given the matter any deep thought, but this is how it seems to me. Those who are being complained about as "woke", seem to take the slightest thing they can present as an issue and go into a rant about it. It makes me wonder if they are more motivated by a need to create an enemy and go into battle than by defending anybody's rights. The problem then is that when anyone raises a legitimate point about inequality or unfair treatment, they are shouted down by the other lot, who yell "wokie" at them. I think this probably tends to make the reasonable among us roll our eyes and walk away. So what I'm saying is that I don't think the woke movement is doing the causes it claims to be fighting for any favours. They may even be playing right into the hands of genuine racists and homophobes.

Where's your evidence for that? When have I ever said anything that could possibly indicate that I'm against equal rights under the law? That I think racism is a good thing? That I support the murder of people in their own countries simply for the 'crime' of being born in that country? The root of my loathing for wonkers is that they don't give a flying rat's arse about any of these things. The whole point of wonkerism is the 'appearance' of caring without actually doing anything about it. They yearn for 'a cause' but can't think of any and couldn't be bothered anyway, so they invent 'causes' and 'enemies'-- hence their constant random and nonsensical flinging around of the 'r' and 'b' words. In their tiny brains this constitutes 'activism'.

Good Lord! it's over five hours since I wrote that; how am I supposed to remember what was going through my head when I posted it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I haven't given the matter any deep thought, but this is how it seems to me. Those who are being complained about as "woke", seem to take the slightest thing they can present as an issue and go into a rant about it. It makes me wonder if they are more motivated by a need to create an enemy and go into battle than by defending anybody's rights. The problem then is that when anyone raises a legitimate point about inequality or unfair treatment, they are shouted down by the other lot, who yell "wokie" at them. I think this probably tends to make the reasonable among us roll our eyes and walk away. So what I'm saying is that I don't think the woke movement is doing the causes it claims to be fighting for any favours. They may even be playing right into the hands of genuine racists and homophobes.

Where's your evidence for that? When have I ever said anything that could possibly indicate that I'm against equal rights under the law? That I think racism is a good thing? That I support the murder of people in their own countries simply for the 'crime' of being born in that country? The root of my loathing for wonkers is that they don't give a flying rat's arse about any of these things. The whole point of wonkerism is the 'appearance' of caring without actually doing anything about it. They yearn for 'a cause' but can't think of any and couldn't be bothered anyway, so they invent 'causes' and 'enemies'-- hence their constant random and nonsensical flinging around of the 'r' and 'b' words. In their tiny brains this constitutes 'activism'.

Good Lord! it's over five hours since I wrote that; how am I supposed to remember what was going through my head when I posted it?

I would say 'you must have been drunk' but I have a feeling you are one of those people who 'never touch a drop'.

[Harbal]

Where's your evidence for that? When have I ever said anything that could possibly indicate that I'm against equal rights under the law? That I think racism is a good thing? That I support the murder of people in their own countries simply for the 'crime' of being born in that country? The root of my loathing for wonkers is that they don't give a flying rat's arse about any of these things. The whole point of wonkerism is the 'appearance' of caring without actually doing anything about it. They yearn for 'a cause' but can't think of any and couldn't be bothered anyway, so they invent 'causes' and 'enemies'-- hence their constant random and nonsensical flinging around of the 'r' and 'b' words. In their tiny brains this constitutes 'activism'.

Good Lord! it's over five hours since I wrote that; how am I supposed to remember what was going through my head when I posted it?

I would say 'you must have been drunk' but I have a feeling you are one of those people who 'never touch a drop'.

No, I'm not one of those people, I actually knock red wine back like there's no tomorrow. I've been known to have two glasses some nights.

[commonsense]

K: and it was a two part question, the second part is, have you personally
been discriminated against because you are white, assuming that you are
white... is that part of the allege racism of being ''WOKE?"

Kropotkin

Part one: what is wokism?

Wokism can best be defined by examining its components individually. IOW, analyze the wokie stand on each modern issue in order to determine what wokism is.

Part two: what is your personal experience as a victim of wokism?

Irrelevant question. Those who rail against wokism need not have been specifically victimized by wokism so long as they believe that wokism victimizes others.