Philosophy Now Forum

An excellent example of a •conceptual armament•, a reduced, condensed story, filled with tendentious talking points, to be used in an Idea War:

Shame on the Woke for having fallen for it. In their zeal to pose as "advocates of the oppressed," they've presented themselves as ready tools of HAMAS, which is the real cause of dying Gazan civilians. And we know this is true, for certain, because the Western protests started far too quickly -- right on the heels of Oct. 7th, on Oct 8th -- before the full measure of the massacres was even known, and before Israel had responded at all.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:59 pm An excellent example of a •conceptual armament•, a reduced, condensed story, filled with tendentious talking points, to be used in an Idea War:

Shame on the Woke for having fallen for it. In their zeal to pose as "advocates of the oppressed," they've presented themselves as ready tools of HAMAS, which is the real cause of dying Gazan civilians. And we know this is true, for certain, because the Western protests started far too quickly -- right on the heels of Oct. 7th, on Oct 8th -- before the full measure of the massacres was even known, and before Israel had responded at all.

How about a "truth war," instead?

Oh, yeah..."The first casualty of war...", as the old saying goes.

But what's "tendentious?" We know for certain that Gaza protests started even before Israel responded. That's verifiable. It was on every news channel. So there's nothing to argue about. It's what happened. So it seems less "tendentious" than "obvious" and "unavoidable."

It is, I have come to understand, ineffective and pointless — within this category — to argue with you or against your position.

I suggest that you are (perhaps) a chemically pure version of a Christian Zionist.

Your POV is fixed within those interpretive terms.

Is it •the truth• you present? Or •truth-claims•? The latter is far more likely.

This is also quite good. I admire the rhetorical pointedness which leaves only one possible conclusion to anyone who believes themselves — mistakenly — to be righteous:

That's the danger of virtue signalling: it makes one a predictable, manipulable dupe. Anything that grooms their desire to preen as "sympathetic" and "compassionate" triggers them into irrational alliances against the side of decency and truth. Nothing more clearly illustrates their gullibility and irrationality than "Gays for Gaza." They even end up advocating for those who would gladly murder them. Wokism thus has become support not for Gazans, but for HAMAS. HAMAS is the one pulling the strings here, and the Wokies are dancing furiously to their tune.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 3:31 pm It is, I have come to understand, ineffective and pointless — within this category — to argue with you or against your position.

Well, we need a new verb.

I suggest we use the word "smollett." It would appear in a sentence like, "The Wokie should have known, but he smolletted."

To "smollett" is to have every reason -- all the evidence -- to know beyond any reasonable doubt that the narrative you've been following is a lie, and STILL to insist on following it: like the people who still believe Jussie Smollett was a victim of a racist mugging, not a staged event.

Here are some more ways Wokies "smollett."

1. "14 days were to flatten the curve."
2. "There was no election interference."
3. "Police are killing young black men for fun."
4. "The protests were mostly peaceful."
5. "A man is really a woman."
6. "A fetus isn't a human life."
7. "The Ukraine War was a surprise."
8. "Russia blew up its own pipeline."
9. "The government is serving the people."
10."The Gaza War is an Israeli genocide against Palestinians."

We all really know. If we don't, there's no excuse for our stupidity. The facts are too plain, and the narrative too absurd. But because virtue-signalling Wokism favours all of these narratives, they will persist in the face of any amount of evidence and facts...and anybody who questions these smolletts will be accused of participating in "right-wing conspiracy theories."

So...Wokies are just smolletting. And that's what Wokies do.

Yeah I'm more of a Sleepie, myself. I fall asleep anytime i hear something about being 'woke'.

Hell for the first two years when the term first came out, everytime i heard a poster at a forum say the word, i thought they meant they just woke up before they posted or sumthin. Fuck did i know. No wonder none of it ever made any sense.




thanks u, thank u, I'll be here all night

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 2:37 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 5:05 am

If Israel will restore peace and allow Gazans a better future, the sooner the better.

HAMAS, in their own charter, and by their current actions, is quite clear: they will not allow this solution. They continue to shoot rockets, they continue to hold hostages, and they continue to promise to wipe Israel off the face of the map if they get the opportunity. They will not stop, and they will not stop precisely so that Israel cannot stop.

Shame on the Woke for having fallen for it. In their zeal to pose as "advocates of the oppressed," they've presented themselves as ready tools of HAMAS, which is the real cause of dying Gazan civilians. And we know this is true, for certain, because the Western protests started far too quickly -- right on the heels of Oct. 7th, on Oct 8th -- before the full measure of the massacres was even known, and before Israel had responded at all. Clearly, HAMAS had prepared to incite these overseas protests, and the Wokies walked right into their propaganda with their empty heads hanging down, never seeing they were being played. What fools!

That's the danger of virtue signalling: it makes one a predictable, manipulable dupe. Anything that grooms their desire to preen as "sympathetic" and "compassionate" triggers them into irrational alliances against the side of decency and truth. Nothing more clearly illustrates their gullibility and irrationality than "Gays for Gaza." They even end up advocating for those who would gladly murder them. Wokism thus has become support not for Gazans, but for HAMAS. HAMAS is the one pulling the strings here, and the Wokies are dancing furiously to their tune.

We all have lies that are easy for us to believe.

Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:30 am We all have lies that are easy for us to believe.

Well, knowing that all humans have a propensity to lean in favour of things we find pleasant to think makes us at least somewhat less likely to fall for those lies. We may check ourselves before investing belief. Smart people do.

But Wokies, it seems, know nothing about self-doubt: it simply does not visit their area code. They're so busy congratulating themselves on their unquestionable virtue and the purity of their personal advocacy for the downtrodden that they have no room for second thoughts. And this makes them all the more easily misled.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 5:22 am

Systematic wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 3:30 am We all have lies that are easy for us to believe.

Well, knowing that all humans have a propensity to lean in favour of things we find pleasant to think makes us at least somewhat less likely to fall for those lies. We may check ourselves before investing belief. Smart people do.

But Wokies, it seems, know nothing about self-doubt: it simply does not visit their area code. They're so busy congratulating themselves on their unquestionable virtue and the purity of their personal advocacy for the downtrodden that they have no room for second thoughts. And this makes them all the more easily misled.

Well, someone has got to rush the foxholes.

Generally, it seems those identifying as Woke and Anti-woke (perhaps not using these terms) see this all as rather binary. There is no one who partially fits either of these categories. There are not overlaps. We don't have people who on the Israel/Gaza issue are pro-Israel but also very supportive of trans-people or pro abortion. Or in the other direction, there are no people who consider Israel's current actions in Gaza extremely problematic but are anti-abortion or pro-Trump or....You get the ideas. There are two party lines, period.

So, many members of both sides treat the possibilities for beliefs/positions/morals/opinions as these two discrete categories: Woke or Anti-Woke.

And then directly stated or implied judgments are made about the idiocy, evil-nature, uncaring, insane, duped....[etc.] nature of anyone on 'the other discrete enemy team.'

This is makes dialogue, response, judgment, interpretation, positioning very easy. You, person X, think Y. Therefore you are woke [or anti-woke]. Now I know everything else you believe, your motivations, character and limitations and a human.

I never have to deal with complicated assessments of people I disagree with. I never have to question any portion of my beliefs, because the only people who disagree are wrong about nearly everything.

I have my go-to jargon to categorize the enemy team and any individual I encounter.

My question is: who benefits from the binary, oversimplified view that is shared by Woke/Unwoke alike?

I don't think most humans benefit from this.

But it certainly benefits the people with the most power.

Are the people who have the most power woke or anti-woke?

Here's a hint: they don't give a shit about the moral issues involved or you.

But they love that binary view-taking and its effects. Oh, they do.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 3:25 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:00 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 2:30 pmYes, I thought so. Not a one.

Which goes to show how you interpret things in ways that suit your beliefs, because how you have interpreted the above is not what it says.

Show me where the substantiation of "conspiracy theory" in that list is, and I'll concede your point. Seems fair.

My point isn't to do with whether cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory, it is that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. I have mentioned that in my particular field, this is identified as underdeterminism, but in the broader context, while we all have different experiences, if we look at our surroundings, we see more or less the same thing. One of the problems we face is how to deal with social and political narratives that are driven by ideological conservatives. Some of those ideological conservatives are political conservatives, others have different affiliations; so for every Franco, Mussolini or Trump, there is a Stalin, Ceaușescu or Kim Jong Un. A common feature of ideological conservatives is the insistence that their point of view is taken as true, which is used to justify indoctrination and propaganda as well as suppression of dissent, if necessary, violently. One problem faced by ideologues is the number of people who are tolerant of others, which ideologues try to counter by exaggerating the threat posed by people they disagree with, or whose lifestyles they object to. And of course ideologues being at best half wits, there is never a shortage of other half wits who will take the bait and scream back. For most people the problem is not one ideologue or another; it is all of them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 3:25 pm...if I can read a ton of Leftist stuff, I think you can stretch yourself to read just one good book from the opposition side, can't you?

I disagree with you on some things. You should consider why you describe your view as "the opposition side".

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:32 am Generally, it seems those identifying as Woke and Anti-woke (perhaps not using these terms) see this all as rather binary.

On the one hand, that's simply a function of the chosen self-honourific, "Woke." It means that the other side is "asleep." But when the fraud involved in their beliefs, the smollettiness of their narrative, becomes so plain that no rational person can deny it anymore, it also becomes manifest that Wokism involves a devil's-bargain with rejecting facts and evidence. The narrative is to be preferred to the truth henceforth, because the truth delivers no opportunity to preen, but he false narrative frames up the opportunity for preening admirably.

Being against Wokism is thus simply a rejection of this sort of mental and moral trade-off. It's to prefer the facts to the narrative, and not to care for the opportunity to preen, and to refuse to be impressed by the self-blandishments of the Woke. It's to work to resituate the public agenda in truth, rather than in the seemings offered by the Woke narrative.

So we can't mistake this for an even-handed, two-sided situation, with truth down the middle. The one side is devoted to a narrative, the other, merelly to refusing that narrative. Being against Wokism does not generate a particular narrative; it merely rejects the narrative put forward by the Woke. Once could come from any other ideological position at all, and be "anti-Woke," so long as one refuses that narrative.

And then directly stated or implied judgments are made about the idiocy, evil-nature, uncaring, insane, duped....[etc.] nature of anyone on 'the other discrete enemy team.'

Again, that's only a function of one side having a definite narrative which is preferred to truth (by their own profession: for they frankly reject things like science, evidence, logic, reason, truth and facts as "hegemonic" or "white" or "oppressive"). Their belief is that insistence on the narrative (since reality is "constructed," to use their term) will eventually result in a "reconstruction" of reality to make that false narrative into truth.

The censorship also only goes one way. One side works hard to "deplatform," "silence," "de-voice" or exclude the other side: but the other side advocates dialogue, debate, public reasoning, and open competition of views. This, too, is not the same on both sides.

So while it's true that people are fractious and tend to produce divisions, not all divisions are equally-sided. And there is the possibility of a naive devotedness to a "middle way" or "moderation" as the automatic and unthinking solution to every controversy. This, too, is not thought, not reason, not facts and not intelligence. Sometimes, one side is making the problem, and the other is only trying to prevent them doing it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 12:54 pm

Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:32 am Generally, it seems those identifying as Woke and Anti-woke (perhaps not using these terms) see this all as rather binary.

On the one hand, that's simply a function of the chosen self-honourific, "Woke." It means that the other side is "asleep." But when the fraud involved in their beliefs, the smollettiness of their narrative, becomes so plain that no rational person can deny it anymore, it also becomes manifest that Wokism involves a devil's-bargain with rejecting facts and evidence. The narrative is to be preferred to the truth henceforth, because the truth delivers no opportunity to preen, but he false narrative frames up the opportunity for preening admirably.

Being against Wokism is thus simply a rejection of this sort of mental and moral trade-off. It's to prefer the facts to the narrative, and not to care for the opportunity to preen, and to refuse to be impressed by the self-blandishments of the Woke. It's to work to resituate the public agenda in truth, rather than in the seemings offered by the Woke narrative.

So we can't mistake this for an even-handed, two-sided situation, with truth down the middle. The one side is devoted to a narrative, the other, merelly to refusing that narrative. Being against Wokism does not generate a particular narrative; it merely rejects the narrative put forward by the Woke. Once could come from any other ideological position at all, and be "anti-Woke," so long as one refuses that narrative.

And then directly stated or implied judgments are made about the idiocy, evil-nature, uncaring, insane, duped....[etc.] nature of anyone on 'the other discrete enemy team.'

Again, that's only a function of one side having a definite narrative which is preferred to truth (by their own profession: for they frankly reject things like science, evidence, logic, reason, truth and facts as "hegemonic" or "white" or "oppressive"). Their belief is that insistence on the narrative (since reality is "constructed," to use their term) will eventually result in a "reconstruction" of reality to make that false narrative into truth.

The censorship also only goes one way. One side works hard to "deplatform," "silence," "de-voice" or exclude the other side: but the other side advocates dialogue, debate, public reasoning, and open competition of views. This, too, is not the same on both sides.

A large number of people do not identify themselves as Woke or Anti-Woke, but take positions that are generally placed by binary-thinking people into one group or the other and it is presumed they have all the beliefs that that group supposedly has. In response you don't deal here with the complicated reality or respond to the fact that people can be mixtures (and generally are mixtures) of the two categories and other beliefs and positions. Your post basically confirms what I am saying. You accept the designation that you think all the people who disagree with you on any issue would give you. You accept that, as if you couldn't define them and yourself and others in more nuanced ways. Then you reel off a generalization about them: those people who disagree with you. Thus posting in the pattern I mentioned and giving your power to define the groups and issues on your own, in your own way, perhaps in a more nuanced complicated way. Something that people of many political positions do with great regularity these days.

And this is a strawman

So while it's true that people are fractious and tend to produce divisions, not all divisions are equally-sided. And there is the possibility of a naive devotedness to a "middle way" or "moderation" as the automatic and unthinking solution to every controversy. This, too, is not thought, not reason, not facts and not intelligence. Sometimes, one side is making the problem, and the other is only trying to prevent them doing it.

And, precisely, you present again two sides. A clear line, period. And the only possible other category that you can come up with, when pressed, is middle way moderation. Which is not what I am thinking of nor is 'what the third option is' the topic of my post. Nor is trinary much better than binary.

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:28 am One of the problems we face is how to deal with social and political narratives that are driven by ideological conservatives. Some of those ideological conservatives are political conservatives, others have different affiliations; so for every Franco, Mussolini or Trump, there is a Stalin, Ceaușescu or Kim Jong Un.

Except, if you notice, leaving Trump aside (and let's, because whatever else one can say, people certainly aren't rational about him right now), they're all Socialists. National or international Socialists, it really makes little difference. You might know, for example, that before he wrote the Fascist Manifesto, Mussolini was a member of the Italian Communist Party, who praised Marx as "the greatest of all theorists of Socialism" (his own words). Fascism was thus the bastard child of Socialism, not its true opposite. And in Hegelian terms, Fascism was the antithesis that sprang directly out of the thesis of Communism, rather than a movement to "conserve" anything from the past. Both are utopian Socialist dreams.

So these aren't "conservatives." These are Socialists. They're all into the "dialectical" view of History, for example, and to collectivism rather than individualism, to controlled markets not free ones, to militarization and expansionism, to propaganda and mind control, to a constructivist view of reality and a teleological view of History, to Hegelian dialectics, to big government, and so forth.

A common feature of ideological conservatives is the insistence that their point of view is taken as true, which is used to justify indoctrination and propaganda as well as suppression of dissent, if necessary, violently.

No, you're not seeing that today. What you're seeing today is conservatives wanting to return to conservative means of conflict resolution, such as open competition, debate in the public square, individualism, free markets, democratic elections, impartial journalism, free speech, property rights, and so forth. None of that looks like "indoctrination," "propaganda" or "suppression of dissent," far less by "violence." At most, you can only be talking about the extreme Right, which is, by any fair account, a vanishingly small and uninfluential force in public affairs. And I think that for the extreme Right, the boat has sailed, and there's no chance of them achieving any of that.

However, the Left clearly wants you to believe that's a threat, and they work quite hard to gin up paranoia to the effect that conservatives are bound to go in that direction. That suits their purposes, because it makes people adopt a knee-jerk fear of anything labelled by the Left as "right wing." But it's not what is really going on, as you can see from the fact that this dreaded "far Right" remains such a small and uninfluential part of the population. The Left can't even find enough incidents of trouble to keep it in the headlines.

One problem faced by ideologues is the number of people who are tolerant of others, which ideologues try to counter by exaggerating the threat posed by people they disagree with, or whose lifestyles they object to.

Well, people aren't very tolerant. And we have to even watch out for the word "tolerance," these days. Marcuse wrote a famous essay about "repressive tolerance," in which he advocates, in the name of "tolerance," the very suppression you are indicting. Shocking, I know...but you can see it for yourself. https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/publica ... ltext.html And Marcuse is a darling of the Left. So again, it's actually not the conservatives who are presenting the threat to tolerance.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 3:25 pm...if I can read a ton of Leftist stuff, I think you can stretch yourself to read just one good book from the opposition side, can't you?

I disagree with you on some things. You should consider why you describe your view as "the opposition side".

Only because it stands "in opposition" to the other view. It's not personal, Will. You can put your mind to rest on that suspicion.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 1:15 pm

Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:28 am I disagree with you on some things. You should consider why you describe your view as "the opposition side".

Only because it stands "in opposition" to the other view. It's not personal, Will. You can put your mind to rest on that suspicion.

You can't quite seem to notice how utterly binary for no real reason you are in response to him and things. 'The' other side. Not someone who disagrees on issue X. The 'the' in the other side indicating the only other place to be. And no need to even name the issue(s).