Re: Wokism

11
josi wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 10:37 pm Your thread clearly shows that you are allowed to voice your (if it actually is yours) opinion.
Sometimes you are part of a majority and you tell others what's what... and they - even if they don't like it - have to live with it.
Sometimes you are part of a minority and you are told by others what's what... and you - even if you don't like it - have to live with it.
Power - also the power to define the meaning of language (semantics) - is subject to cultural change (read the books by Foucault).
it tends to be a waste of time discussing something when the other doesn't take the time to look at the posted material or context.

The video is a clear warning on what is happening now and where it is leading and the importance of not allowing one group to contantly change the meaning of 'words' in order to confound opposition and control the narrative.

Politicians will not dare try to define what 'a woman' is because, as the video says, they risk being deplatformed, cancelled and ruining their entire careers. This authoritarian oppression is spreading everywhere for any kind of 'wrong think'.

We may have free speech today but there is no guarantee we'll have it tomorrow.

We don't ''have to live with'' non-truths.

The activists are not the majority, the majority are only just waking up to the nonsense.

The reason this nonsense is being funded and promoted is to cause social division and unrest and is just another aspect of the elites long term goal to destroy liberal democracys.
These users thanked the author Ogee for the post (total 3):
josi, Jedidiah, LittleCaro


Re: Wokism

12
Ogee wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:26 pm a) The video is a clear warning on what is happening now and where it is leading and the importance of not allowing one group to contantly change the meaning of 'words' in order to confound opposition and control the narrative.

b) Politicians will not dare try to define what 'a woman' is because, as the video says, they risk being deplatformed, cancelled and ruining their entire careers. This authoritarian oppression is spreading everywhere for any kind of 'wrong think'.

c) We may have free speech today but there is no guarantee we'll have it tomorrow.

d) We don't ''have to live with'' non-truths.

e) The activists are not the majority, the majority are only just waking up to the nonsense.

f) The reason this nonsense is being funded and promoted is to cause social division and unrest and is just another aspect of the elites long term goal to destroy liberal democracys.
a) the video gives one man's one-sided opinion about something. As to any future development it is pure speculation and doesn't even consider the fact that languages are historical, meaning: changing forever and giving power of definition one ruling class after the other...
b) as I said: politicians want to be re-elected; therefore they will do whatever it takes to be on the side of the (likely) majority; i. e. where power is located.
c) Why did I refer to Foucault? There never really was such a thing as "free speech" (as far as relevance, participation, or power goes); without us being aware of it (most of the time): we - the westernised, industrialised, capitalised etc - states disregarded the "voice" ("free speech") of minorities (women among them, by the way...) for centuries witthout being too concerned about it. It is just now that the same happens to us that we find this somewhat disquieting.
d) as Nietzsche explained - a long time ago - there is no "truth": "truth" represents the consensus/stereotypes of the ruling class(es). Always ask: cui bono?
e) Depending on the environment (campus life etc) they can be; everything that is not supported by the majority/the ones in power will not be durable/established.
I believe the majority of people doesn't care one bit about "woke-ness".
They care about electricity bills, gas prices, lack of affordable housing, and maybe war...
f) the reason why somebody produces a video on language and "woke-ness" (if he isn't a linguist) is to distract people from more imprtant topics (see above).
Elites? A bit vague, don't you think? Which elites? Brainiards? Cultural elites? Industrialists? Politicians?
Each individual of each of these groups can afford to have an opinion and therefore has - at least - one. You won't find them agreeing on anything; even less following a "joint plan".
And - honestly - do you think "the elites" have nothing better to do with their time & billions than brainwash people who have already been brainwashed through media, adverts, politics, and threads? Probably they work hard and enjoy whatever little is left of the rest of their privileged life. As for inherited capital: those people probably are much too lazy to worry too much about the underdogs they emplöy, exploit and otherwise ignore as best as they can.
Anyway, no hard feelings, I hope. Was nice talking (in a manner) to you.

Re: Wokism

15
Ogee wrote: Mon Aug 29, 2022 7:44 pm The battle for language, what words actually mean, is being lost.

Politicians can no longer define what 'a woman' is, YOU are not allowed to say there are only 2 sexes.

If this battle is lost there will no longer be free speech.


Overton window in action


Re: Wokism

16
josi wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 12:22 am a) the video gives one man's one-sided opinion about something. As to any future development it is pure speculation and doesn't even consider the fact that languages are historical, meaning: changing forever and giving power of definition one ruling class after the other...
b) as I said: politicians want to be re-elected; therefore they will do whatever it takes to be on the side of the (likely) majority; i. e. where power is located.
c) Why did I refer to Foucault? There never really was such a thing as "free speech" (as far as relevance, participation, or power goes); without us being aware of it (most of the time): we - the westernised, industrialised, capitalised etc - states disregarded the "voice" ("free speech") of minorities (women among them, by the way...) for centuries witthout being too concerned about it. It is just now that the same happens to us that we find this somewhat disquieting.
d) as Nietzsche explained - a long time ago - there is no "truth": "truth" represents the consensus/stereotypes of the ruling class(es). Always ask: cui bono?
e) Depending on the environment (campus life etc) they can be; everything that is not supported by the majority/the ones in power will not be durable/established.
I believe the majority of people doesn't care one bit about "woke-ness".
They care about electricity bills, gas prices, lack of affordable housing, and maybe war...
f) the reason why somebody produces a video on language and "woke-ness" (if he isn't a linguist) is to distract people from more imprtant topics (see above).
Elites? A bit vague, don't you think? Which elites? Brainiards? Cultural elites? Industrialists? Politicians?
Each individual of each of these groups can afford to have an opinion and therefore has - at least - one. You won't find them agreeing on anything; even less following a "joint plan".
And - honestly - do you think "the elites" have nothing better to do with their time & billions than brainwash people who have already been brainwashed through media, adverts, politics, and threads? Probably they work hard and enjoy whatever little is left of the rest of their privileged life. As for inherited capital: those people probably are much too lazy to worry too much about the underdogs they emplöy, exploit and otherwise ignore as best as they can.
Anyway, no hard feelings, I hope. Was nice talking (in a manner) to you.

Let's change the 'meaning' of words.

'antifa' (antifascists) are actually fascists.
'social justice warriors' are actually against social justice.
'progressives' are actually regressive,

(as the video, that you didn't watch, explains very clearly and so is obviously not just 'opinion').

err, Nietzsche died a crazed syphlitic.

People are being refered to the police for 'word' crimes.

The 'majority' are waking up to the fact that made up stuff like 'cultural race theory' is complete and utter bullshit and that 'social justice warriors' are the same.

The 'elites' are the Davos Billionaires (Gates, Soros et al) as I might of mentioned only a few hundred times so not 'vague' at all.

As everyone knows by now the 'elites' have just pulled off the greatist heist in human history and with their stated plan - 'the great reset' (agenda 2030 and agenda 2050) they are now setting up to become the rulers of a totalitarian world.
These users thanked the author Ogee for the post:
josi

Re: Wokism

17
Ogee wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 6:05 am Let's change the 'meaning' of words.
Dear Ogee,
The meaning of words changes all the time, historically speaking. It is a normal process. Linguistic adaptation etc.
You have your opinions; I have mine.
No harm done. After all, this is a "trading site".
Luhmann spent his whole career trying to explain that modern societies cannot be understood as one system, they don't have "one elite", one bureaucracy, one political caste, one economic branch etc.
Instead they represent a permanent struggle of opposing subsystems that influence each other while trying to establish or reestablish their relative importance etc.
Maybe, this is only a suggestion, you should sometimes try to see the difference between an opinion, an argument and a fact.
And maybe you should replace ad hominem attacks (see: syphilitic Nietzsche) by factual, argumentative discussion.
I wish you all the best

Re: Wokism

18
josi wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:54 pm Dear Ogee,
The meaning of words changes all the time, historically speaking. It is a normal process. Linguistic adaptation etc.
You have your opinions; I have mine.
No harm done. After all, this is a "trading site".
Luhmann spent his whole career trying to explain that modern societies cannot be understood as one system, they don't have "one elite", one bureaucracy, one political caste, one economic branch etc.
Instead they represent a permanent struggle of opposing subsystems that influence each other while trying to establish or reestablish their relative importance etc.
Maybe, this is only a suggestion, you should sometimes try to see the difference between an opinion, an argument and a fact.
And maybe you should replace ad hominem attacks (see: syphilitic Nietzsche) by factual, argumentative discussion.
I wish you all the best
you still don't get it because you still refuse to read/watch the original post you keep commenting on.

The word 'regressive' can never be changed to mean 'progressive'. 'Progressives' have stated over and over that they want to see the return of racial segregation, this is not opinion it is fact. Naming yourself the opposite of what you really are doesn't make it true. Fact, social justice warriors subscibe to anti-white rhetoric, that's social injustice. Fact, antifa are bussed in to start riots or to use violence to breakup peaceful demonstrations depending on the cause, that's fascist not antifascist.

and it's not a ad hominem attack on a man who died of syphilis to say the man died of syphilis, it's a fact.

Re: Wokism

19
''Nature Journal Announces That Research Will be Rejected and Retracted if it “Might Potentially Inadvertently be Racist, Sexist or Homophobic”.


''The woke capture of science and its subordination to fashionable political ideology continues apace. The latest victim is the journal Nature Human Behaviour, which in a recent editorial announced a new policy of rejecting and retracting research which may potentially harm (even inadvertently) individuals or groups most vulnerable to “racism, sexism, ableism, or homophobia”. Bo Winegard in Quillette is not impressed.''

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/30/nat ... omophobic/


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ruby [Bot], Trendiction [Bot] and 52 guests