WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

I just don't see it through your turd tinted glasses, Gus.

I think, Wilbur, that what we have here is a classic failure to communicate due to non-synchronous concept-modes.

Let me try to break through to you in a differing mode:

::: takes an enormous breath and sings :::

You never enjoy the world aright, till the Sea itself floweth in your veins, til you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars: and perceive yourself to be the sole heir of the whole world and more than so, because men are in it who are everyone sole heirs as well as you. Till you can sing and rejoice and delight in God, as misers do in gold, and Kings in scepters, you can never enjoy the world.

Till your spirit filleth the whole world, and the stars are your jewels; till you are as familiar with the ways of God in all ages as with your walk and table: till you are intimately acquainted with that shady nothing out of which the world was made: till you love men so as to desire their happiness, with a thirst equal to the zeal of your own: till you delight in God for being good to all: you never enjoy the world. Till you more feel it than your private estate, and are more present in the hemisphere, considering the glories and the beauties there, than in your own house; till you remember how lately you were made, and how wonderful it was when you came into it: and more rejoice in the palace of your glory, than if it has been made but today morning.

Well?? Are you feeling it now?!?

[Immanuel Can]

The defining feature of a "conspiracy theory" is that it cannot be falsified because any evidence which might falsify it is part of the conspiracy.

The defining feature of an accusation of "conspiracy theory," is that it denies there's any evidence to be had, and reinforces the disposition of those pulled into it not to look at the facts.

But the facts will always win. There are two kinds of people, then: those who dismiss things as "conspiracy theories," and those who check to see which are, and which are not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The fact is that we on the left, don't think in terms of ''cultural Marxism'' because there is no such thing... it is a made-up thing from conservatives and those on the right who need an easy to digest explanation for the thoughts of those on the left …

Beyond and shadow of a doubt; absolutely and un-debatably, there most definitely exists Cultural Marxism.

And the Left generally speaking, whether those there are aware of it or not, have been exposed — marinated in — a set of concept and perspectives that came into the world through Marxian thought.

Not a •made up thing• but a generalization about a series of things (influences, concerns, relationships) which, as with many blanket and popular terms, is used too broadly. You could describe it like this:

The Left calls everyone who is less radical than they a Nazi. A term to describe a moral failing.

The Right similarly uses the term “woke” to refer to something that, many at least, have a difficult time defining because a critical posture in respect to hyper-liberalism and wokeness, is an endeavor that is in the works.

The categories of Cultural Marxism are so pervasive that a great many struggle to define a sensible, workable alternative pole on which to base their own worldview.

Have you wunderkinden not read your Gramsci?!? For fuck’s sake this is tedious to have to explain …

The fact is that we on the left don't think in terms of Marxism … a term I have rejected time and time again … one can be on the left without, without being a Marxist … and those on the right just can't understand how one can be on the left, without being a Marxist … it is rather easy … and any type of study of the history of Liberals from 1950 to 2000 can show us the many ways that one can
be liberal without being a Marxists … as a study of both Isaiah Berlin and Richard Rorty can show us, just to name a few on the left who are not Marxists....

In a sense you — American Progressives — don’t really think. The Progressive American •philosophy• of many is a variant of American-styled Personalism. A hodge-podge of henid-like thought/feelings jumbled together in a disordered mind. It could not define itself very well.

But as I say the influence of Marxian derived thinking, however inchoate, filters down — has filtered down — and affects how people see and interpret things.

You can look at those theorists of the Frankfurt School favorably and still you’d have to be aware of their intellectual provenance as directly descending from harder Marxian forms. To negate this is bold ignorance in motion.

And Liberalism ain’t Marxism.

And note that James Lindsay defines himself as a Liberal. He would describe himself as working to preserve genuine Liberalism from its perversion and destruction at the hands of people — like you ? — who cannot define either.

[Iwannaplato]

When white people use the term 'woke' it's cultural appropriation.
Just didn't want the irony missed.

I just woke , what's that now?

You're good, you used it as a verb, paleface. Just don't go all adjective on it.

[Alexiev]

The defining feature of a "conspiracy theory" is that it cannot be falsified because any evidence which might falsify it is part of the conspiracy.

The defining feature of an accusation of "conspiracy theory," is that it denies there's any evidence to be had, and reinforces the disposition of those pulled into it not to look at the facts.

But the facts will always win. There are two kinds of people, then: those who dismiss things as "conspiracy theories," and those who check to see which are, and which are not.

No. The accusation means exactly what I said it means. It means that any falsfying evidence will be discounted. "Of course the liberal (or conservative) media will provide "fake news" to discredit this conspiracy theory."

The divide in the U.S is based not on differences of opinion, but on differing sets of "facts".

[attofishpi]

Strange how it's always "We on the left" & "The far-right"

NEWS JUST IN: There is NO moderate left - you of the left shall now be referred to as "FAR-LEFT" or "EXTREME-LEFT" ...depending on how perverted you are.

[Immanuel Can]

The defining feature of a "conspiracy theory" is that it cannot be falsified because any evidence which might falsify it is part of the conspiracy.

The defining feature of an accusation of "conspiracy theory," is that it denies there's any evidence to be had, and reinforces the disposition of those pulled into it not to look at the facts.

But the facts will always win. There are two kinds of people, then: those who dismiss things as "conspiracy theories," and those who check to see which are, and which are not.

No.

Yes.

The divide in the U.S is based not on differences of opinion, but on differing sets of "facts".

Nope. The facts are the facts. And the opinions don't matter if they don't square with the facts.

[Alexiev]

Nope. The facts are the facts. And the opinions don't matter if they don't square with the facts.

You can't be that dense. I put "facts" in quotation marks to suggest that people who glean information from different sources believe different things are facts. For example, you believe (with scant evidence) that Jesus (and Lazarus) rose from the dead. Is this a "fact"? Maybe. Maybe not.

[Immanuel Can]

Nope. The facts are the facts. And the opinions don't matter if they don't square with the facts.

I put "facts" in quotation marks to suggest that people who glean information from different sources believe different things are facts. For example, you believe (with scant evidence) that Jesus (and Lazarus) rose from the dead. Is this a "fact"? Maybe. Maybe not.

If you think the evidence for that is "scant," then I think you perhaps don't know how good the historical evidence is. It's far better than for many events that historians routinely assert as if they were incontrovertible facts. I can recommend several good books on the subject, if you have an interest in that. But we shall let that be, for now. It's a big topic, and not this particular one.

But since you bring it up...let us respect your uncertainty, and put it this way: it will still be a fact if He did, and a fact if He didn't. It won't be an "opinion" that He did, and merely an "opinion" that He did not. One way or the other, the facts always win.

Why I'm here, and why I debate these issues, is because the facts win. And if I have my preference, as many people as possible will win when the facts come in. Belief in the resurrection is the grounds of salvation. "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved..." (Rom. 10:9)

[Alexiev]

Nope. The facts are the facts. And the opinions don't matter if they don't square with the facts.

I put "facts" in quotation marks to suggest that people who glean information from different sources believe different things are facts. For example, you believe (with scant evidence) that Jesus (and Lazarus) rose from the dead. Is this a "fact"? Maybe. Maybe not.

If you think the evidence for that is "scant," then I think you perhaps don't know how good the historical evidence is. It's far better than for many events that historians routinely assert as if they were incontrovertible facts. I can recommend several good books on the subject, if you have an interest in that. But we shall let that be, for now. It's a big topic, and not this particular one.

But since you bring it up...let us respect your uncertainty, and put it this way: it will still be a fact if He did, and a fact if He didn't. It won't be an "opinion" that He did, and merely an "opinion" that He did not. One way or the other, the facts always win.

Why I'm here, and why I debate these issues, is because the facts win. And if I have my preference, as many people as possible will win when the facts come in. Belief in the resurrection is the grounds of salvation. "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved..." (Rom. 10:9)

I'll agree that "facts" are facts. I'll also agree that the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead includes (ancient) eye witness accounts, and is probably as robust as evidence for other ancient events I accept. Nonetheless, an eye witness who says, "I saw a dragon flying down main street" is.less credible than one who says, "I saw a taxi driving down main street." The burden of proof is higher for incredible events.

I have a friend here in the Pacific Northwest who is a sasquatch hunter. He claims there is.lots of evidence for sasquatch. He is right. Eye witness accounts, films, etc. But I still don't buy it. Unlikely and incredible occurrences require superior evidence to gain credibility.

[Immanuel Can]

I put "facts" in quotation marks to suggest that people who glean information from different sources believe different things are facts. For example, you believe (with scant evidence) that Jesus (and Lazarus) rose from the dead. Is this a "fact"? Maybe. Maybe not.

If you think the evidence for that is "scant," then I think you perhaps don't know how good the historical evidence is. It's far better than for many events that historians routinely assert as if they were incontrovertible facts. I can recommend several good books on the subject, if you have an interest in that. But we shall let that be, for now. It's a big topic, and not this particular one.

But since you bring it up...let us respect your uncertainty, and put it this way: it will still be a fact if He did, and a fact if He didn't. It won't be an "opinion" that He did, and merely an "opinion" that He did not. One way or the other, the facts always win.

Why I'm here, and why I debate these issues, is because the facts win. And if I have my preference, as many people as possible will win when the facts come in. Belief in the resurrection is the grounds of salvation. "...if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved..." (Rom. 10:9)

I'll agree that "facts" are facts. I'll also agree that the evidence for Jesus rising from the dead includes (ancient) eye witness accounts, and is probably as robust as evidence for other ancient events I accept. Nonetheless, an eye witness who says, "I saw a dragon flying down main street" is.less credible than one who says, "I saw a taxi driving down main street." The burden of proof is higher for incredible events.

Indeed so. But that burden, I would say, has been well met. Do you want a couple of book recommendations? Start with the basics "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," (McDowell) or "The Case for Christ." (Strobel) Both will give you a great starting point. Then move up to Gary Habermas's "Risen Indeed," which has some of the very latest evidence.

[Consul]

There are those "right-wing commentators" who are convinced that cultural marxism is really a thing:…

Cultural Marxism is really a thing; but what it is according to political science is different from what it is according to right-wing conspiracy theorists.

As for the real Cultural Marxism:
Doug(las) Kellner (2021): Cultural Marxism, British Cultural Studies, and the Reconstruction of Education

versus:

Tanner Mirrlees (2018): The Alt-Right’s Discourse of “Cultural Marxism”: A Political Instrument of Intersectional Hate (PDF)

[Peter Kropotkin]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

K: I have been rather busy at work, but I am unable to find such a study to
look at their methodology... please cite said study so I can take a look at it....

Kropotkin

[Gary Childress]

I'm trying to think if there was a social group that was the equivalent of "woke" back in the 70s when I was growing up. I almost want to say the hippies, maybe? I recall a lot of pushback and stigma toward the hippies. I recall stereotypes of them being "rebels because it was fashionable" and of course older generations called the younger lazy and undisciplined.

Do those who admonish "wokeness" see them as too focused on issues concerning transsexuality? I remember encountering young college students back in the 2000 teens that referred to people who advocated for racial justice as "woke". If I'm not mistaken, "woke" often refers to advocates of racial justice also. Do those who see the "woke" as misguided, think they are misguided in all their various positions, racial justice, LGTBQ inclusion, and cancel culture or does it mostly have to do with the trans movement and cancel culture? Those are the two most criticized stances that I've noticed on these boards.

[Immanuel Can]

More interesting stuff.

According to a U of Toronto study (2016), the following four factors were by far the strongest predictors of Wokism:

1. Low verbal intelligence -- the greatest predictor, by far.

2. Being female.

3. Having a female temperament (male gammas, presumably).

4. Having taken even one of the PC courses at university.

The Wokes differed from earlier Left-leaning liberals in having absolutely no compunction about applying various forms of force in order to advance their agenda.

K: I have been rather busy at work, but I am unable to find such a study to
look at their methodology... please cite said study so I can take a look at it....

Kropotkin

Cited by J. Peterson, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grNLfzFwPpg&t=712s