Wokeism

[Chuckie]

Mod note: This post and the two following posts were split off from the "Q debate n Talk" thread, because they have nothing to do with the Q phenomenon, and because this discussion has been popping up on a sufficient number of recent-enough forum threads already to warrant a thread of its own.

---

Yes medbeds are a potential, sometime , at least imo.

Q is done, soon, a self destruct i believe.

I saw the other day that Vice is going bankrupt?

[Wind]

I saw the other day that Vice is going bankrupt?

Sadly yes... People have been saying that once you go woke, you go broke. I wonder if that applies to Vice.

[Chuckie]

Sadly yes... People have been saying that once you go woke, you go broke. I wonder if that applies to Vice.

well what people call 'woke' I call a 'raising' of social consciousness. Many people will work against that and cause a temporary loss of progress, but things will move on as they always have. Interesting meme though, woke go broke.

One of the things I noted in the book that I read about World War II ... "Savage Continent" is that many of the globe's news outlets were very reluctant to accept the reality of the Holocaust and either discounted it or avoided it all together. Very few were open about it and overtime they are the ones that survived ignominious demise and are still around today The others went into the dustbin of history.

[Chuckie]

Mod note: This post and the two following posts were split off from the "Q debate n Talk" thread, because they have nothing to do with the Q phenomenon, and because this discussion has been popping up on a sufficient number of recent-enough forum threads already to warrant a thread of its own.

thanks for the explanation Aragorn, I was thinking Holy Shit I don't remember doing that. Scared the hell out of me... Between you and I, I hope it dies...I don't want to be held responsible for a thread like that. (I just have my opinion but I'm not into proselytizing the issue, I'll let time and Jordan Peterson do its thing).

Truth is, I never even saw the 'Q' part of the title. My mind will blank things out that don't impact me...don't finger point me, that is what the mind is supposed to do, if not madness ensues.

[Aragorn]

well what people call 'woke' I call a 'raising' of social consciousness.

Do you consider it "a raising of social consciousness"...

• that age-old and innocent traditions and/or concepts such as Zwarte Piet should be dragged out of context, and then vilified and forbidden by law as allegedly being racist; and...

• that the villain in any recent Hollywood production must by definition not be a person of color anymore, at the penalty of allegations of racism?

I call that an unwarranted sense of revenge from people who themselves have not had to endure any of the racist atrocities of the past because they hadn't been born yet, in the form of racism against people who themselves have had nothing to do with those racist atrocities of the past because they too had not been born yet.


That's not "a raising of social consciousness". That's a blood feud.

---

Do you consider it "a raising of social consciousness" to insist...

• that biological gender does not exist and that gender is a choice, even though the gender of mammals has already ages ago — literally — been scientifically established as defined by chromosome pairs, in the form of either the female genotype (XX), the male genotype (XY), or one of several androgynous genotypes (46XO, 46XX/47XXY, or 45X/46XY mosaic), with, from the purely scientific vantage, the three androgynous genotypes all being genetic anomalies — no disrespect for such people intended;

• that people of a clearly identifiable biological gender who do not feel like they belong to said gender must by everyone be addressed and/or referred to with a gender-neutral pronoun — even in languages that do not carry any such pronouns for referring to human beings — or that they must be addressed and/or referred to with a pronoun specific to another gender than the one they biologically and identifiably belong to;

• that people who have their gender appearance changed away from the biological gender they belong to must be addressed with a pronoun specific to their chosen gender appearance, even though it would be more logical to refer to those people with gender-neutral pronouns;

• that the gender identity issues of the above two categories of people be strongly highlighted and addressed in news articles regarding subjects that coincidentally involve such people but do not in any way pertain to said people's gender identity issues — e.g. a traffic accident, the passing away of one of their relatives, et al;

• that the biological development of pre-teen children should be artificially delayed via hormone injections until they are old enough to ponder upon the question of what gender appearance they would want to have, even if they do not exhibit the least signs of being confused about their gender identity; and...

• that every new TV series and movie should have at least one and preferably several LGTBQ+ characters — preferably of a non-Caucasian ethnicity — in it in a prominent role, or put a special highlight on these LGTBQ+ characters and/or their LGTBQ+-related issues, even when said issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the plot of the episode/movie?

I call that a neurotic denial of reality, a ridiculous attempt at changing reality, and, above all, an attempt at forcing other people — by law even, if possible — into compliance with one's own neurotic game of make-believe, and at having other (and innocent) people pay for one's own inability to accept oneself for who and what one is.

---

Do you consider it "a raising of social consciousness" to glue oneself to priceless works of art — thereby (potentially) ruining them for all eternity — "because when climate change is not halted and/or reversed, there will be nobody left to enjoy those works of art anyway"?

I call that arrogant, insane, childish, disrespectful, and a form of extortionist vandalism — "If I can't have what I want, then I'm going to make sure that you can't either, nah!".

---

Do you consider it "a raising of social consciousness" to condemn a woman to a substantial prison sentence for having slapped her brat of a child over the head when he misbehaved? And I do mean "slapping her brat of a child over the head in the pedagogically accepted/warranted manner", not "having beaten the shit out of a defenseless child".

I call that a gratuitously disproportional display of bureaucratic and judicial authority with the intent of deterring any dissent among the members of society against the neurotic Wokemon™ agenda, and I also consider it a very dangerous precedent on account of letting an opinionated group of people with neuroses slip tyranny into the law.

---

That's what I call it. And I am (moderately) progressive and left-wing. However, as it just so happens to be, I am not insane, and it is the busybodies afflicted with the above list of insane behaviors that I call Wokemons™, a word that apparently already existed before I invented it — perhaps it's a case of convergent evolution.

[Chuckie]

wellll, in a manner speaking yes to all...look around you and you will see all the things wokeists are complaining about continuing business as usual...nothing has changed yet. It is the Hegelian Dialectic exhibiting its normal behavior (remember I mentioned that was the only philosophical point I ever studied that actually seemed to have any bearing on the real world, nothing I've ever seen take place has given me a reason to think otherwise).

I don't forgive idiots for being idiots (suffer fools gladly after enough time for them to have learned better), One thing that I never forgot from grammar school especially because I thought the teacher was looking at me when she said it... "Empty cans make the most noise".

The only thing that really incenses me is when I actually 'identify' with something and then some knothead creates a meme about it and thinks it is suppose to be humorous.

I went through a phase of racism before I realized that just because I wasn't black there weren't going to be people trying to f*ck me over...despite the fact that I'm 68% Northern European. Having a Mexican name and looking the part is more than enough for most 'idiots'

The point is for example, when African-Americans start shouting racism and wanting to change this and that I don't freak about it. I think ok, do what you can, be honest and sensible (within reason) because if you aren't there are numerous entities that will capitalize on it and even make things up if they have to. So the end result is a 'chaos' comprised of 'lies, memes, stereotypes, deluded perceptions, deluded by design I might add, and sometimes even some truth'. But the scales will balance, the Hegelian Dialectic will see to it. So, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. I would advise equanimity which should be possible if you don't feel you are being unjustly included in the list of bad guys.

But, if you feel strongly enough about something without any sense of guilt, conscious or otherwise, most commonly it would be otherwise, then you have to go for it. It's cool, brother, it's cool.

And you will be a part of the force that delivers the synthesis that distills from the Thesis and antithesis. Jordan Peterson is still a complete ass.

[Fred Steeves]

I call that a neurotic denial of reality, a ridiculous attempt at changing reality, and, above all, an attempt at forcing other people — by law even, if possible — into compliance with one's own neurotic game of make-believe, and at having other (and innocent) people pay for one's own inability to accept oneself for who and what one is.

While I believe in general, that the culture war is by and large purposely encouraged and facilitated by those who wish to see continued division amongst the people so that they can never ever come together on anything, it still needs to be addressed to certain degrees just to keep the lid from blowing off of this pressure cooker we're all in.

I still remember watching on Team Blue MSNBC a couple of years ago, where two of their female woke commentators were giddy in talking about a certain female candidate who was a shoo in to win. Here's how the one excitedly put it to the other: "She's female, she's black, and she's gay. Try criticizing that!"

Well now they may as well have been talking about the current White House Press Secretary, former (imagine that!) MSNBC host Karine Jean-Pierre. She's a woman, she's black, and best of all she's gay. Criticize that!

Karine Jean-Pierre (born August 13, 1974)[b] is a Martinican-born Haitian-American political advisor who has served as the White House press secretary since May 13, 2022. She is the first black person and the first openly LGBT[c] person to serve in the position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karine_Jean-Pierre



See, it doesn't even really matter what one's positions on things are any more if you're a player for Team Blue, or even if they're qualified for that matter, so long as they can check off all the right boxes they're right as rain.

This is not Left, this is mental illness posing as civil rights activism.



There's plenty of room to talk about the mental illness of Team Red, but this thread is not that particular venue.

[Aragorn]

wellll, in a manner speaking yes to all...look around you and you will see all the things wokeists are complaining about continuing business as usual...nothing has changed yet.

You're completely missing the point of my post.


First of all, it most certainly isn't "business as usual" — your words — over here in Europe on account of the issues you listed in what I've snipped from your quotes.


Secondly, am I to infer that you too...

• would send a woman to prison for several years because she slapped her tenaciously misbehaving son over the head;
• believe that biological gender does not exist;
• feel that children should be molested with hormone injections that delay the onset of puberty^[1] in order to force them into thinking about what gender appearance they would like to have;
• feel that — to name but one example — the entire Star Trek franchise should be converted from a venerated science-fiction series into an LGBTQ+ propaganda^[2] machine; and
• feel that the existence of Zwarte Piet is racism and should forever be banned, even though the character and his appearance have nothing to do with racism, and even though children do not see Zwarte Piet as being anything other than the loyal and funny helper of a Catholic saint who brings them toys and candy every year?

If your answer to those questions is "yes", then I'm afraid there's no hope for you.

[1] Now that is what I call child abuse.
[2] You say you hate propaganda, but apparently propaganda is okay if it comes from the (so-called) left side of the aisle?

---

This is not Left, this is mental illness posing as civil rights activism.

Exactly! Thanks, Fred — I'm glad there's at least one person here who actually understands what I meant with my previous post.

[Chuckie]

To all, you can say with justification if you prefer the points you made. I just don't believe it...

It is like taking a caricature of a thinking human being, in the guise of senselessness and taking it seriously.

MSNBC ... I would no more buy that sh*t than I would anything I ever saw on Fox...it's pointless and harmful because if one dwells on the facade of stupidity (however deep it may go) one will never get to the meat of the issue. This is the web and everyone gets there say...but it stops there. e.g. Jordan Peterson can pontificate all he likes, he will never move me to do, say, or think anything that is contrary to my values, beliefs, or anything else for that matter.

[Fred Steeves]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS_gLFOrjMw

[Chuckie]

Ok, I actually thought about this one for a second:

1. feel that children should be molested with hormone injections that delay the onset of puberty[1] in order to force them into thinking about what gender appearance they would like to have.

It is a difficult decision but to have the latitude to look at that as a possible amelioration of a child's suffering MIGHT be reasonable. Possible variations of the below run the gamut of human sexuality...Wouldn't you agree?

It is the only one that I've thought about so far...but is it a cause for social hysteria? I think not, perhaps serious medical and psychological discussion would be more appropriate?

hermaphroditism
biology

Also known as: androgyny, monoecism, Clonorchis sinensis

hermaphroditism, the condition of having both male and female reproductive organs. Hermaphroditic plants—most flowering plants, or angiosperms—are called monoecious, or bisexual. Hermaphroditic animals—mostly invertebrates such as worms, bryozoans (moss animals), trematodes (flukes), snails, slugs, and barnacles—are usually parasitic, slow-moving, or permanently attached to another animal or plant.

In humans, conditions that involve discrepancies between external genitalia and internal reproductive organs are described by the term intersex. Intersex conditions are sometimes also referred to as disorders of sexual development (DSDs). Such conditions are extremely rare in humans. In ovotesticular disorder (sometimes also called true hermaphroditism), an individual has both ovarian and testicular tissue. The ovarian and testicular tissue may be separate, or the two may be combined in what is called an ovotestis. Affected individuals have sex chromosomes showing male-female mosaicism (where one individual possesses both the male XY and female XX chromosome pairs). Most often, but not always, the chromosome complement is 46,XX, and in every such individual there also exists evidence of Y chromosomal material on one of the autosomes (any of the 22 pairs of chromosomes other than the sex chromosomes).

Individuals with a 46,XX chromosome complement usually have ambiguous external genitalia with a sizable phallus and are therefore often reared as males. However, they develop breasts during puberty and menstruate and in only rare cases actually produce sperm. In 46,XX intersex (female pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have male external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a female. In 46,XY (male pseudohermaphroditism), individuals have ambiguous or female external genitalia but the chromosomal constitution and reproductive organs of a male, though the testes may be malformed or absent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment of intersex in humans depends upon the age at which the diagnosis is made. Historically, if diagnosed at birth, the choice of sex was made (typically by parents) based on the condition of the external genitalia (i.e., which sex organs predominate), after which so-called intersex surgery was performed to remove the gonads of the opposite sex. The remaining genitalia were then reconstructed to resemble those of the chosen sex. The reconstruction of female genitalia was more readily performed than the reconstruction of male genitalia, so ambiguous individuals often were made to be female. However, intersex surgery has long-term consequences for affected individuals. Later in life, for example, the person may not be satisfied with the results of surgery and may not identify with the assigned gender. Thus, patient consent has become an increasingly important part of decisions about intersex surgery, such that surgery may be delayed until adolescence or adulthood, after patients have had sufficient time to consider their gender and are able to make informed decisions about treatment. In older individuals the accepted gender may be reinforced by the appropriate surgical procedures and by hormonal therapy.

Subjects Of Study: hermaphroditism homosexuality human sexual activity transvestism
Magnus Hirschfeld, (born May 14, 1868, Kolberg, Prussia [now Kołobrzeg, Poland]—died May 14, 1935, Nice, France), German physician who was an important theorist of sexuality and a prominent advocate of gay rights in the early 20th century.

Hirschfeld was born to Jewish parents in a Prussian town on the Baltic coast. He first studied modern languages and then medicine, obtaining a doctoral degree in 1892. After a period of travel, he returned to Germany and established a medical practice in Magdeburg in 1894. Two years later he moved to Berlin, where he would become actively involved in the scientific study of sexuality—in particular, homosexuality—and advocacy efforts on behalf of sexual minorities.

Hirschfeld maintained that sexual orientation was innate and not a deliberate choice, and he believed that scientific understanding of sexuality would promote tolerance of sexual minorities. His sexology research was guided by empiricism and activism, driven by the belief that the sexual ideology of Judeo-Christian civilization was a serious obstacle to the understanding of sexuality and to the reform of laws and practices that regulated it.

Initially Hirschfeld supported the concept that homosexuals constituted the “third sex,” although he soon moved on from that. He is best known for his subsequent theory of sexual intermediaries, which held that there were many types of naturally occurring sexual variations found across the human population, such as hermaphroditism, homosexuality, and transvestism. He is also credited with coining the term transvestite.

Hirschfeld accomplished an enormous amount of work during his lifetime with regards to his research, writing, and advocacy efforts. In 1897 Hirschfeld established the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee with Max Spohr, Franz Josef von Bülow, and Eduard Oberg; it was the world’s first gay rights organization. Its main goal was to fight for the abolishment of Paragraph 175 of the German Imperial Penal Code, which punished sexual contact between men. In 1899 he started the Yearbook of Intermediate Sexual Types, the first journal in the world to deal with sexual variants; it was regularly published until 1923. He also published an important study on cross-dressing, The Transvestites (1910). Hirschfeld was one of the founders of the Medical Society for Sexual Science and Eugenics, established in 1913. The next year he published his study Homosexuality in Men and Women, which was based on the expansive statistical surveys on homosexuality that he had conducted. In addition to publishing works on sexology and sexual reforms, Hirschfeld also wrote about racism, politics, and the history of morals.

In 1919 Hirschfeld opened the first sexology institute in the world, the Institute for Sexual Science, in Berlin; the institute and the considerable holdings of its library and archives were destroyed by Nazi demonstrators in 1933. Hirschfeld also participated in the production of the first film to call for the decriminalization and acceptance of homosexuality, Different from the Others (1919). The controversial film ignited much debate and was banned by German officials within a year. In 1928 Hirschfeld founded the World League for Sexual Reform (WLSR), which had its roots in an early conference that he had organized in 1921, the First International Conference for Sexual Reform on a Scientific Basis. The WSLR called for reform of sex legislations, the right to contraception and sex education, and legal and social equality of the sexes.

Being a Jew, a gay man, and a sexual liberation activist made Hirschfeld the target of right-wing supporters, and he suffered serious injuries from an attack in 1920. Later, with the Nazis’ growing power, he was regularly assaulted, his lectures were disrupted, and, upon completion of his international speaking tour in 1932, he was unable to return to Germany. He instead went to Switzerland and then in 1934 to France, where he died the next year.

[Aragorn]

Ok, I actually thought about this one for a second:

1. feel that children should be molested with hormone injections that delay the onset of puberty[1] in order to force them into thinking about what gender appearance they would like to have.

It is a difficult decision but to have the latitude to look at that as a possible amelioration of a child's suffering MIGHT be reasonable.

1. Children won't be suffering on account of their gender identity yet if they're not even old enough to properly understand what gender and sexuality are.

2. Delaying the onset of puberty in healthy children also has the effect of delaying the development of the brain, including with regard to the child's concepts of gender and sexuality. So the point is moot. Furthermore, it's unnatural and may have serious consequences for the child's physical development and health.

3. Subjecting all children to this "treatment" is criminal and unethical.

It is the only one that I've thought about so far...but is it a cause for social hysteria? I think not, perhaps serious medical and psychological discussion would be more appropriate?

hermaphroditism
biology

Also known as: androgyny, monoecism, Clonorchis sinensis

Now that genuinely is a genetic/physical anomaly, which in the (still recent enough) past used to be "treated" by coercively turning all androgynous children into the female phenotype, because it was until then believed that sexual orientation would be an acquired personality trait, rather than a genetically determined one.

In the event of biologically androgynous children, I would propose waiting until the child is old enough to decide under what gender identity it wants to exist, instead of doctors or parents making the decision for the child. But at least in this particular case, there is a biologically relevant pretext for medical intervention. In the event of non-androgynous children, there is no such pretext, and it is not up to parents, doctors or politicians to determine how the child's body should grow into an adult.



Note: I am equally opposed to mothers having the ears of their little girls pierced, to guys having their sons tattooed while they're still babies, and to non-medically-warranted circumcisions — whether on males or females.

[Chuckie]

1. Children won't be suffering on account of their gender identity yet if they're not even old enough to properly understand what gender and sexuality are.

2. Delaying the onset of puberty in healthy children also has the effect of delaying the development of the brain, including with regard to the child's concepts of gender and sexuality. So the point is moot. Furthermore, it's unnatural and may have serious consequences for the child's physical development and health.

3. Subjecting all children to this "treatment" is criminal and unethical.




Now that genuinely is a genetic/physical anomaly, which in the (still recent enough) past used to be "treated" by coercively turning all androgynous children into the female phenotype, because it was until then believed that sexual orientation would be an acquired personality trait, rather than a genetically determined one.

In the event of biologically androgynous children, I would propose waiting until the child is old enough to decide under what gender identity it wants to exist, instead of doctors or parents making the decision for the child. But at least in this particular case, there is a biologically relevant pretext for medical intervention. In the event of non-androgynous children, there is no such pretext, and it is not up to parents, doctors or politicians to determine how the child's body should grow into an adult.



Note: I am equally opposed to mothers having the ears of their little girls pierced, to guys having their sons tattooed while they're still babies, and to non-medically-warranted circumcisions — whether on males or females.

"Subjecting all children to this "treatment" is criminal and unethical." <-- that isn't criminal and unethical, it is insane. There has to be what one person in the world that thinks it is ok.

I am against piercing baby girls too, my ex thought it was ok, and then put an earring in my daughter's ear that she was allergic to and then never noticed the distress my daughter was in...Just another occasion when I could have taken a sledgehammer to her mother.

[Catsquotl]

Me?

I am just tired of both sides of the woke/social warriors discussion.
If it does not concern you, Just keep your opinions where everyone had them.

It's yet another dichotomizing way to look at the world and keep the people dissatisfied with each other. Praying on idea's and selling the emotional content of one side over the other as bread and games.

If you have a close friend or even a family member that feels trapped in his or her body, because he or she feels it doesn't fit. Treat them as you would any friend. Listen, comfort and be a friend.
If someone on the street starts yelling at you for saying excuse me sir when that stranger feels like a woman. Their just jerks.

I found in this discussion it's easy to take a stance.
In real life, I find I come to an agreeable way to move forward with most.

Woke is a joke.

[Aragorn]

"Subjecting all children to this "treatment" is criminal and unethical." <-- that isn't criminal and unethical, it is insane. There has to be what one person in the world that thinks it is ok.

When my dearly beloved and meanwhile sadly departed sister Kelly was still part of this mortal realm, she told me — and she was quite upset about it — that it had actually been proposed in the US Congress by an LBGTQ+ activist, so apparently there's more than one kookaboo who thinks it's okay.

I am against piercing baby girls too, my ex thought it was ok, and then put an earring in my daughter's ear that she was allergic to and then never noticed the distress my daughter was in...Just another occasion when I could have taken a sledgehammer to her mother.

Hmm... There might be hope for you after all. Maybe we'll be able to cure you of your Wokemonastry™ — yes, that was not a word earlier, but it is now.