WOKE and proud of it....

[Peter Kropotkin]

K: fixed it for you....

Kropotkin

So.

Getting back to your thread title --> being proud of being "WOKE"

Are you proud that men can claim to be women and then enter the arena of women's sport, participating as IF they are women

K: sure, let us rehash old stuff.......

your question suggests that you don't get the basic idea behind
being ''WOKE''..... to become aware of the possibilities
that exists within any given situation......to become aware,
through either an epiphany or by a long process of thought, about
what is possible for a person...... Kant writes about his own
epiphany, or a moment of being '''WOKE'' where he discovered
his prior beliefs were wrong because of his readings of Hume......
his exact statement was this, in Kant's Prolegomena:

''It was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago,
interrupted my dogmatic slumber''

or in modern parlance, Kant became ''WOKE''... aware of the
possibilities inherent in any given situation......

and this ''WOKE'' can take many different and diverse forms.....
becoming aware of.... at many points in my life, my own vision
changed and I become aware of some other possibility within my own life.....
I have had three different and distinct political stances.... I have had dozens
of philosophical positions.. from Nietzschean to existentialism to
Kierkegaardian....and all kinds of places in between.....


today, today I no longer have a philosophical position such as
being Nietzschean..... my own thoughts have evolved beyond that.....
and so, I hold to my own thoughts.... Kropotkinean, to coin a phrase....
and as always, I am aware of what possibilities exists within that
turn of the phrase, Kropotkinean......

people seek out their own possibilities within their own understanding
and desires about being human...... I have been a man my entire life...
to be something else, is inconceivable to me.... but that is my own
belief about this.... it doesn't preclude or stop another from holding
to different beliefs or values, different from my own values/beliefs....

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

for if I claim the right to deny him his possibilities, he can then claim the right
to deny me my own possibilities... on what grounds do we deny others
their possibilities? on what standard? on what grounds do we deny
a man their own possibilities to be a woman? What standard are we
using? and remember, any standard we use to deny other's rights, can then
be used against us in our own search for us reaching our possibilities.....

be aware of the tool one uses to deny rights... for that very tool
can also be used against us.......

Kropotkin

[accelafine]

K: fixed it for you....

Kropotkin

So.

Getting back to your thread title --> being proud of being "WOKE"

Are you proud that men can claim to be women and then enter the arena of women's sport, participating as IF they are women

K: sure, let us rehash old stuff.......

your question suggests that you don't get the basic idea behind
being ''WOKE''..... to become aware of the possibilities
that exists within any given situation......to become aware,
through either an epiphany or by a long process of thought, about
what is possible for a person...... Kant writes about his own
epiphany, or a moment of being '''WOKE'' where he discovered
his prior beliefs were wrong because of his readings of Hume......
his exact statement was this, in Kant's Prolegomena:

''It was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago,
interrupted my dogmatic slumber''

or in modern parlance, Kant became ''WOKE''... aware of the
possibilities inherent in any given situation......

and this ''WOKE'' can take many different and diverse forms.....
becoming aware of.... at many points in my life, my own vision
changed and I become aware of some other possibility within my own life.....
I have had three different and distinct political stances.... I have had dozens
of philosophical positions.. from Nietzschean to existentialism to
Kierkegaardian....and all kinds of places in between.....


today, today I no longer have a philosophical position such as
being Nietzschean..... my own thoughts have evolved beyond that.....
and so, I hold to my own thoughts.... Kropotkinean, to coin a phrase....
and as always, I am aware of what possibilities exists within that
turn of the phrase, Kropotkinean......

people seek out their own possibilities within their own understanding
and desires about being human...... I have been a man my entire life...
to be something else, is inconceivable to me.... but that is my own
belief about this.... it doesn't preclude or stop another from holding
to different beliefs or values, different from my own values/beliefs....

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

for if I claim the right to deny him his possibilities, he can then claim the right
to deny me my own possibilities... on what grounds do we deny others
their possibilities? on what standard? on what grounds do we deny
a man their own possibilities to be a woman? What standard are we
using? and remember, any standard we use to deny other's rights, can then
be used against us in our own search for us reaching our possibilities.....

be aware of the tool one uses to deny rights... for that very tool
can also be used against us.......

Kropotkin

So you like to hang around in women's toilets then. Got it. Women have a lot to say about that. Good luck.

[attofishpi]

K: sure, let us rehash old stuff.......

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

for if I claim the right to deny him his possibilities, he can then claim the right
to deny me my own possibilities... on what grounds do we deny others
their possibilities? on what standard? on what grounds do we deny
a man their own possibilities to be a woman? What standard are we
using? and remember, any standard we use to deny other's rights, can then
be used against us in our own search for us reaching our possibilities.....

Richard Feynman "If you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't understand it."

Let's take the red bit. Notice, you used "HIM" - what right to tell "HIM" etc..

You ask: ..what right do I have to tell him he is wrong?

Every women in a women's sporting outfit has every right to tell a MAN that he cannot pretend to be a WOMAN and compete fairly as a woman in their sport.

AGAIN:- What rational argument do you have as to why MEN can always claim to be WOMEN

[Alexis Jacobi]

NYTs today:

Major Democratic Donors Ask Themselves: What to Do About Biden?
___________
Some floated interventions and wondered about how to reach Jill Biden. Others hoped the president would bow out of the race on his own. Many came to terms with the low chances that he will do so.
___________

The Democratic Party’s perennially nervous donor class descended into deep unease on Friday, as some of the wealthiest people in America commiserated over President Biden’s weak debate performance and puzzled over what, if anything, they could do to change the course of the race.

There were discussions with political advisers about arcane rules under which Mr. Biden might be removed from the ticket against his will and replaced at or before the Democratic National Convention, according to a person familiar with the effort.

In Silicon Valley, a group of megadonors, including Ron Conway and Laurene Powell Jobs, were calling, texting and emailing one another about a situation they described as a possible catastrophe. The donors wondered about whom in the Biden fold they could contact to reach Jill Biden, the first lady, who in turn could persuade her husband not to run, according to a person familiar with the conversations.

A Silicon Valley donor who had planned to host an intimate fund-raiser featuring Mr. Biden this summer decided not to go through with the gathering because of the debate, according to a person told directly by the prospective host. Another major California donor left a debate watch party early and emailed a friend with the subject line: “Utter disaster,” according to a copy of the email.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Today, today I no longer have a philosophical position such as being Nietzschean. My own thoughts have evolved beyond that. And so I hold to my own thoughts: Kropotkinean, to coin a phrase. And as always, I am aware of what possibilities exists within that
turn of the phrase, Kropotkinean.

God help us all.

[Walker]

he has stated he will be a dictator from day one....

Kropotkin

He said he would be a dictator for one day only ... only on the first day.

You're very keen on twisting things, aren't you.

I think you come to see what you want to see, but you never come to know. (RIP, Kinky)

[Alexis Jacobi]

IQ45 has also publicly stated that he will make his main priority, as president, the public retribution [against] any/all of his enemies.

One cannot discount the mood of “payback time” and no trope is more common in the American psyche. It is demonstrated especially in movie portrayals where the hero goes to town on his enemies. The audience vicariously allies with the hero and derives glee from the enactment.

Trump’s reelection, however, will militarize (figuratively speaking) the Left-Democrat faction to even greater radicalism and resistance.

In other words the divisions that exist — social, political, ideological — will not be resolved but will intensify.

Any one of us might •gloat• (I admit to feeling pleased that the ambitions of this Left-Democrat faction is “suffering” after this disastrous Biden performance — it ended his presidential ambitions IMO and is not comparable to Obama’s bad first performance) but there is little reason for celebration. Simply because civil conflict is imminent and will only get worse.

[Walker]

Just wait until Biden wins the election with another record vote count.

[Walker]

Well, I'm sure if Biden had been actually DEMENTED, he would have danced around the podium, fallen down a few time and offered to buy Trump a cheeseburger.

His behavior is comparable to those things, in the context of the situation, which was a debate meant to display his mental acuity. Now he's displaying false bravado with the announcement that there will be further humiliating debates. However, that will all be swept aside after he wins the election, unless they can break through his stubborn old man attitude and convince him to quit before the election, which may be difficult. After all, he does have the legal authority to pretty much do as he pleases. What if he has a psychotic break and goes on an authority rampage with his vicious guard dog that bites everyone it can get its mouth on?

[Alexis Jacobi]

If a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have to tell him he is wrong? Why do I have the right to deny him his possibilities, and based on what reasons do I deny him his possibilities?

And if he believes himself to be a dog or a cat? a furry mammal? And what about a duck with a duck’s inalienable right to a body of water?

Once you (once one, once we) go round the first bend in the river, and once it is normalized, thereafter all other options open up as possibilities. If it transforms into social hysteria like a national dance-craze — well it is not hard to speculate where it could go.

This illustrates in some sense the “liberal rot” that Tomislav Sunic referred to. But how do we define that? What is it really?

One takes leave of sensible — indeed “sane” — boundaries and of course definitions. Why not? What’s to hold one back?

The issue is really there: to have cut the rope to former moorings. What were the bases of any moorings ever conceived or defined?

Kropotkineism proposes, indirectly and by inference, that no boundary should exist. It is really an acidic ideology and eats away at any established hierarchy or value.

Obviously, I take this beyond the simple deviancy of transvestism, which could be described as harmless within bounds.

We must notice this radical will to attack and topple hierarchies. It is connected, I say this truthfully, to a form of Marxian praxis: if a definition exists, deconstruct it. Rip it out. If an “authority” exists, attack that authority. Perhaps it can be seen as the child’s will gone amok? It becomes an existential sport. Yet divorced from a holistic, constructive philosophy or ideology.

[henry quirk]

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”

Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!

-Rudyard Kipling

[Immanuel Can]

Now we have all seen that Biden is horribly, horribly demented.

What a loathsome, disgusting prejudiced bullshitter you are. To be "horribly, horribly demented"

Just what I expected. Complete denial of the obvious truth. Well, that, and irrelevant abuse.

There are limits to the effectiveness of gaslighting. One is when people can see for themselves.

[Alexiev]

Interesting, Henry. The "copy book headings" refers to maxims,, often scriptural, appearing at the top of the pages of notebooks. Kipling seems to suggest that these are often opposed to the "gods of the marketplace", and that true conservatives must return to a pre-capitalist ideology.

This seems at odds with modern conservatism, which honors both traditional religious values and market economies.

The hostility of Christian conservatives toward communism is understandable; communists repressed religion and discriminated against the religious. However, worshipping the "gods of the marketplace" may violate the Commandment about worshipping false idols.

[Peter Kropotkin]

he has stated he will be a dictator from day one....

Kropotkin

He said he would be a dictator for one day only ... only on the first day.

You're very keen on twisting things, aren't you.

I think you come to see what you want to see, but you never come to know. (RIP, Kinky)

K: awww, isn't that cute... you actually believe him when he says he
will be a ''dictator for a day''.... what is to stop him from being a
dictator the second day or the third day or the third month or
a couple of years later? I note that Hitler was elected Chancelor of
Germany... a public election.... how did that go for Germany?

what is to stop him from being dictator for life?

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

atto: Getting back to your thread title --> being proud of being "WOKE"

Are you proud that men can claim to be women and then enter the arena of women's sport, participating as IF they are women
[/quote]

K: sure, let us rehash old stuff.......

your question suggests that you don't get the basic idea behind
being ''WOKE''..... to become aware of the possibilities
that exists within any given situation......to become aware,
through either an epiphany or by a long process of thought, about
what is possible for a person...... Kant writes about his own
epiphany, or a moment of being '''WOKE'' where he discovered
his prior beliefs were wrong because of his readings of Hume......
his exact statement was this, in Kant's Prolegomena:

''It was the objection of David Hume that first, many years ago,
interrupted my dogmatic slumber''

or in modern parlance, Kant became ''WOKE''... aware of the
possibilities inherent in any given situation......

and this ''WOKE'' can take many different and diverse forms.....
becoming aware of.... at many points in my life, my own vision
changed and I become aware of some other possibility within my own life.....
I have had three different and distinct political stances.... I have had dozens
of philosophical positions.. from Nietzschean to existentialism to
Kierkegaardian....and all kinds of places in between.....


today, today I no longer have a philosophical position such as
being Nietzschean..... my own thoughts have evolved beyond that.....
and so, I hold to my own thoughts.... Kropotkinean, to coin a phrase....
and as always, I am aware of what possibilities exists within that
turn of the phrase, Kropotkinean......

people seek out their own possibilities within their own understanding
and desires about being human...... I have been a man my entire life...
to be something else, is inconceivable to me.... but that is my own
belief about this.... it doesn't preclude or stop another from holding
to different beliefs or values, different from my own values/beliefs....

who am I to say that another person possibilities are wrong and
unnatural? For me to achieve what is possible for me, requires
that others accept those possibilities....and for others to achieve
their own possibilities, I must accept their possibilities....

if a man believes himself to be a woman, what right do I have
to tell him he is wrong? why do I have the right to deny him
his possibilities, and based on what reasons, do I deny him
his possibilities?

for if I claim the right to deny him his possibilities, he can then claim the right
to deny me my own possibilities... on what grounds do we deny others
their possibilities? on what standard? on what grounds do we deny
a man their own possibilities to be a woman? What standard are we
using? and remember, any standard we use to deny other's rights, can then
be used against us in our own search for us reaching our possibilities.....

be aware of the tool one uses to deny rights... for that very tool
can also be used against us.......


ACC: So you like to hang around in women's toilets then. Got it. Women have a lot to say about that. Good luck.

K: I have no interest of any kind, to hang out in women's toilets....
very nice leap of faith you made, from me allowing the possibilities of
being human, of you wanting me to go into a women's bathroom.....
quite a leap you made....

Kropotkin