Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

Tony EH

Biker79 wrote: »

Needs more faux-chumminess by using an "initial" when addressing a "poster".

Ah relax B.

:pac:

AllForIt

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Well it is outrageous to be outraged about Johnny Foreigner on TV

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Fair enough.

Takes some balls to come on the air and admit you don't know the difference between a guy from Limerick and a foreigner; or are you going to be covering it up now by pretending it was sarcasm...?

It take some balls to be so obtuse, as if noone would notice. I refer you both back to my original post (again) which you both vultured over. It's all there in black and white. To spell it out, the fact he's born Irish makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the point I originally made or where I was coming from. If you both weren't so focused on vulturing maybe you wouldn't have missed my point and made fools of yourselves.


And by the way, I have reported a couple of posts on this thread, reason being it's the same point over and over and over again. That is, the argument that 'what are you getting so het up about', 'just ignore it, it will go away', 'what's the big deal, your promoting all this', 'it's all just trivial stuff - noone cares', etc etc.

Since my reports have gone unrecognized (and that's fine mods), - I'm going to call it out myself.

Spineless. Utterly spineless argumentative style. Why Joey don't you just admit if RTE were to product place race or some other minority demographic that you'd agree with it. Or you could have argued it's not happening at all and it's all in my mind, but you didn't do either. You just seen it as an opportunity to vulture. You're utterly spineless Joey, going around vilifying anyone you can whenever you can because you see everything in black and white, lefty and everyone else.

And that is what we have had throughout this whole thread. Spineless posters who who don't have the balls to defend the wokeisms, instead criticise the people who bring them to our attention instead.

Because you can't defend them. You just agree with the whole notion of it. If it gets ppl's backs up then it's doing it's job. That's the whole point. Anyone who isn't on side is a racist. Pathetic.

Morathi

Ah, relax A.

Necro

AllForIt wrote: »

It take some balls to be so obtuse, as if noone would notice. I refer you both back to my original post (again) which you both vultured over. It's all there in black and white. To spell it out, the fact he's born Irish makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the point I originally made or where I was coming from. If you both weren't so focused on vulturing maybe you wouldn't have missed my point and made fools of yourselves.


And by the way, I have reported a couple of posts on this thread, reason being it's the same point over and over and over again. That is, the argument that 'what are you getting so het up about', 'just ignore it, it will go away', 'what's the big deal, your promoting all this', 'it's all just trivial stuff - noone cares', etc etc.

Since my reports have gone unrecognized (and that's fine mods), - I'm going to call it out myself.

Spineless. Utterly spineless argumentative style. Why Joey don't you just admit if RTE were to product place race or some other minority demographic that you'd agree with it. Or you could have argued it's not happening at all and it's all in my mind, but you didn't do either. You just seen it as an opportunity to vulture. You're utterly spineless Joey, going around vilifying anyone you can whenever you can because you see everything in black and white, lefty and everyone else.

And that is what we have had throughout this whole thread. Spineless posters who who don't have the balls to defend the wokeisms, instead criticise the people who bring them to our attention instead.

Because you can't defend them. You just agree with the whole notion of it. If it gets ppl's backs up then it's doing it's job. That's the whole point. Anyone who isn't on side is a racist. Pathetic.

Mod:

Don't post in this thread again

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AllForIt wrote: »

It take some balls to be so obtuse, as if noone would notice. I refer you both back to my original post (again) which you both vultured over. It's all there in black and white. To spell it out, the fact he's born Irish makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to the point I originally made or where I was coming from. If you both weren't so focused on vulturing maybe you wouldn't have missed my point and made fools of yourselves.


And by the way, I have reported a couple of posts on this thread, reason being it's the same point over and over and over again. That is, the argument that 'what are you getting so het up about', 'just ignore it, it will go away', 'what's the big deal, your promoting all this', 'it's all just trivial stuff - noone cares', etc etc.

Since my reports have gone unrecognized (and that's fine mods), - I'm going to call it out myself.

Spineless. Utterly spineless argumentative style. Why Joey don't you just admit if RTE were to product place race or some other minority demographic that you'd agree with it. Or you could have argued it's not happening at all and it's all in my mind, but you didn't do either. You just seen it as an opportunity to vulture. You're utterly spineless Joey, going around vilifying anyone you can whenever you can because you see everything in black and white, lefty and everyone else.

And that is what we have had throughout this whole thread. Spineless posters who who don't have the balls to defend the wokeisms, instead criticise the people who bring them to our attention instead.

Because you can't defend them. You just agree with the whole notion of it. If it gets ppl's backs up then it's doing it's job. That's the whole point. Anyone who isn't on side is a racist. Pathetic.

He's Irish. It's not woke. End of discussion.

Sir Oxman

Anyhoo, back to 'wokeisms'
Note the rewteeter :pac:

Biker79

Tony EH wrote: »

Ah relax B.

:pac:

No inverted commas for me.FFS.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Biker79 wrote: »

No inverted commas for me.FFS.

Who...??

ingalway

In case your wondering what REALLY started the 'trouble' in Washington
This trans identifying male is a rape crisis centre manager in Scotland.

statesaver

ingalway wrote: »

In case your wondering what REALLY started the 'trouble' in Washington
This trans identifying male is a rape crisis centre manager in Scotland.

They always have to make it about themselves no matter what is happening.
Tis sad really.

Biker79

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Who...??

You know, those sullen teenage wokies who put FFS at the end of everything.

Like they've just been told to go outside and get some fresh air.

IAMAMORON

I thought about it earlier.

I agree, RTE have ramped up their inclusivity - but - I would rather that they consciously did so rather than unconsciously. At least they are attempting to include all members of society. It is too easy for people to cast aspersions all said. - And yes I am being deliberately cagey and duplicitous, it is in my nature to be so. I am off ambiguity for the next few weeks, but it shall return in due course.

I find it unfortunate that this thread is not afforded the direct freedom of thought and speech it deserves. Albeit posts need to be challenged as opposed to posters, we are all guilty of prejudice - it is in our nature.

The beauty with contention is that it evolves within itself, almost camouflaged within it's own insincerity? There lies within the miraged infamy of censorship, fear and subjugation.

If you think something is worth taking the piss out of and exposing for what it is, don't let fear of your honesty become nurtured? Spit it out and say it proud, tell the truth and shame the devil. The reality is that the blurred lines of woked correctness are murky and treacherous. Therein lies your fears. Don't let the phuckers away with it, they deserve to be challenged.

It is not the inclusion of inclusivity that it the enemy, it is the complacency of mindlessness when challenged by mindfulness. There is a difference.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I thought about it earlier.

I agree, RTE have ramped up their inclusivity - but - I would rather that they consciously did so rather than unconsciously. At least they are attempting to include all members of society. It is too easy for people to cast aspersions all said. - And yes I am being deliberately cagey and duplicitous, it is in my nature to be so. I am off ambiguity for the next few weeks, but it shall return in due course.

I find it unfortunate that this thread is not afforded the direct freedom of thought and speech it deserves. Albeit posts need to be challenged as opposed to posters, we are all guilty of prejudice - it is in our nature.

The beauty with contention is that it evolves within itself, almost camouflaged within it's own insincerity? There lies within the miraged infamy of censorship, fear and subjugation.

If you think something is worth taking the piss out of and exposing for what it is, don't let fear of your honesty become nurtured? Spit it out and say it proud, tell the truth and shame the devil. The reality is that the blurred lines of woked correctness are murky and treacherous. Therein lies your fears. Don't let the phuckers away with it, they deserve to be challenged.

It is not the inclusion of inclusivity that it the enemy, it is the complacency of mindlessness when challenged by mindfulness. There is a difference.

Very true, but then you have the exact opposite: the moment a person with an ethnic background gets the position, you get whingers cliaming that it's only down to inclusivity and PC and screaminging woke this and woke that and you end up with conversations like these.

Maybe - just maybe - they're getting these positions because they're talented and appiontments are made on merit.

IAMAMORON

It is the prerogative of any institution to staff itself as it sees fit.

I would find it important in the modern world that employers diversify as they require, it is within their own demand.

I am not interested in debating it to be frank. All efficient employment roles are subject to the scrutiny of the employer. It is the employer that bears the risk of appointment. Nothing is ever seamless.

I have heard the cranks in many organisations, the reality is that most employees' secure their positions on the basis of their popularity as opposed to their capabilities. I have witnessed this truth far too many times.

I would rather get on with the boss than do my job properly. It is laughable but true. I have been fired previously for doing my job. Ethnicity never came into it. If they like you... your job is secure. I have witnessed complete clowns annihilate entire commercial divisions and retain their role through nepotism - a bigger evil imo.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Maybe - just maybe - they're getting these positions because they're talented and appiontments are made on merit.

Sure, very true. They could be. Or they might not be.

Considering the racial demographics of Ireland, many Irish people feel this showing of other racial groups is forced, and artificial. There's the expectation that it would take time (2-3 decades) for the additions of other racial groups to develop, earn their spurs, etc until they got these attractive/prominent positions.

However, we are increasingly seeing more non-whites being put in such roles, and it's hard for many (myself included) to believe that it's down to their hard earned experience working up the ladder, the way the remainder of the population is expected to achieve success.

I've lived in other countries with very diverse, and established racial populations. It doesn't bother me, in the slightest when I'm abroad, to see such representation (since it feels natural) but considering the relatively short period for immigration to become "a thing" for Ireland... it certainly does feel pushed on to the population.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sure, very true. They could be. Or they might not be.

Considering the racial demographics of Ireland, many Irish people feel this showing of other racial groups is forced, and artificial. There's the expectation that it would take time (2-3 decades) for the additions of other racial groups to develop, earn their spurs, etc until they got these attractive/prominent positions.

However, we are increasingly seeing more non-whites being put in such roles, and it's hard for many (myself included) to believe that it's down to their hard earned experience working up the ladder, the way the remainder of the population is expected to achieve success.

I've lived in other countries with very diverse, and established racial populations. It doesn't bother me, in the slightest when I'm abroad, to see such representation (since it feels natural) but considering the relatively short period for immigration to become "a thing" for Ireland... it certainly does feel pushed on to the population.

We're taking about rwo different things here - woke and social inciusuon.

And both sides are guilty of the same thing: having an agenda and rying too hard to highlight something that simply isn't there; be it racisn/bigotry or PC.

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're taking about rwo different things here - woke and social inciusuon.

And both sides are guilty of the same thing: having an agenda and rying too hard to highlight something that simply isn't there; be it racisn/bigotry or PC.

the fundamental idea behind wokeness is to destroy the existing order not just to to include outsiders in the existing order.Give it 10 or 20 years and Irish dancing will be seen as a espousing "right wing" extremism or the GAA an expression of whiteness and toxic male heteronormativity unless there is a general push back before then

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're taking about rwo different things here - woke and social inciusuon.

And both sides are guilty of the same thing: having an agenda and rying too hard to highlight something that simply isn't there; be it racisn/bigotry or PC.

You're talking about different things. Apparently. Social inclusion refers to helping those in poverty. The woke movement is about forcing social change on others based on issues relating to racial, gender, etc.

You might want to reconsider the post that I originally quoted...

Rodin

It's not RTE's job to be inclusive.
It is their job to make sure they are NOT EXclusive.
Social engineering is an awful thing.

I don't see them being inclusive when it comes to their content. Very liberal/left-wing.. No attempt to have more conservative/rightwing commentary.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

the fundamental idea behind wokeness is to destroy the existing order not just to to include outsiders in the existing order.Give it 10 or 20 years and Irish dancing will be seen as a espousing "right wing" extremism or the GAA an expression of whiteness and toxic male heteronormativity unless there is a general push back before then

That's not the idea behind it at all - what in the hell give you the idea that it was? I'm not saying this isn't the effect it's having, or this isn't what's happening, but this shows a gross lack of understandung to the original concept and motivations.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're talking about different things. Apparently. Social inclusion refers to helping those in poverty. The woke movement is about forcing social change on others based on issues relating to racial, gender, etc.

You might want to reconsider the post that I originally quoted...

That's the title of a research document, not a definition...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's the title of a research document, not a definition...

The point was made that people are supposedly getting annoyed at the pushing of other racial groups into the public eye, and you suggested that these chosen individuals could have been perfectly qualified for those positions.. yes? As opposed to them being chosen solely to promote the existence or racial/ethnic diversity of Ireland.

In response, I pointed out that due to the relatively newness (20ish years) of immigration, that people have the expectation that people would earn their positions, and as such, it would take time for them to achieve such visible positions... positions that are likely in demand.

Now you're introducing completely different factors. I have no idea why. Oh, and the link I provided was to the Irish government website which deals with "Social inclusion". Not a research document.

There's no argument going on here. You stated one way of looking at the situation, and I pointed out another. Both are equally possible.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The point was made that people are supposedly getting annoyed at the pushing of other racial groups into the public eye, and you suggested that these chosen individuals could have been perfectly qualified for those positions.. yes? As opposed to them being chosen solely to promote the existence or racial/ethnic diversity of Ireland.

In response, I pointed out that due to the relatively newness (20ish years) of immigration, that people have the expectation that people would earn their positions, and as such, it would take time for them to achieve such visible positions... positions that are likely in demand.

Now you're introducing completely different factors. I have no idea why. Oh, and the link I provided was to the Irish government website which deals with "Social inclusion". Not a research document.

There's no argument going on here. You stated one way of looking at the situation, and I pointed out another. Both are equally possible.

Your link is not to a definition.

Woke and social inclusion are global ideas, not specific to Ireland and a lot older than 20ish years. Immigration has certainly been going on a lot longer that that - the Irish, as you know, have been emigrating for nearly 200 years.

Also, the definions go wider than just RTE appointments.

How are YOU actually defining these terms? Generally? With your words, not with links?

I'm referring to the example above of the RTE appointment and the pushing of visibility for racial diversity. Obvious enough, really (since I've stated it twice already).

You seem to want to argue something entirely different. Nah. Not interested in playing the game of definitions with you, since I figured the use of "Social inclusion" was a side issue, and a distraction.

As for the Irish emmigrating for 200 years, i said immigration to Ireland. The way some peoples minds work is utterly bizarre. Forget it. It's pretty clear you've no intention of actually discussing the subject at hand.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm referring to the example above of the RTE appointment and the pushing of visibility for racial diversity. Obvious enough, really (since I've stated it twice already).

You might be, I'm not.

You seem to want to argue something entirely different. Nah. Not interested in playing the game of definitions with you, since I figured the use of "Social inclusion" was a side issue, and a distraction.

As for the Irish emmigrating for 200 years, i said immigration to Ireland. The way some peoples minds work is utterly bizarre. Forget it. It's pretty clear you've no intention of actually discussing the subject at hand.

No, that "something diffetrent" is exactly what I've been arguing in the frist place.

Here's the post again - which you replied to - where I clearly state what I mean:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

We're taking about rwo different things here - woke and social inciusuon.

And both sides are guilty of the same thing: having an agenda and rying too hard to highlight something that simply isn't there; be it racisn/bigotry or PC.

It's delibertely general. It's not specific to any event, organsation or country. It's about "woke" and "social inclusion" as global entities.

If you want to debate RTE, fair enough. but you'll need to find someone else to debate with. I don't know enough about them to say one way or the other and I never have posted about them. I simply put forward a theory on one appointment.

Biker79

" Woke ' and ' Social Inclusion ' are elements of a global cult. Their simplistic tenets are purposely designed to travel unchecked through social media to the smartphones of lonely, vulnerable people all over the world.

They have created a ready market of righteous but naive consumers, hooked into their smartphones, and willing to buy whatever advertisers on social platforms sell to them. Its marketing genius.

Woke-ism reminds me of Miss World* taking the stage to tearfully wish for world peace. Endearing, well-meaning fo sure...but obviously not to be taken in any way seriously.

(Except that wokies are often bitter and not very photogenic) *

km991148

Biker79 wrote: »

" Woke ' and ' Social Inclusion ' are elements of a global cult. Their simplistic tenets are purposely designed to travel unchecked through social media to the smartphones of lonely, vulnerable people all over the world.

They have created a ready market of righteous but naive consumers, hooked into their smartphones, and willing to buy whatever advertisers on social platforms sell to them. Its marketing genius.

Woke-ism reminds me of Miss World* taking the stage to tearfully wish for world peace. Endearing, well-meaning fo sure...but obviously not to be taken in any way seriously.

(Except that wokies are often bitter and not very photogenic) *

Mass consumerism and capitalism are one thing and "woke ideologies" as this thread would put it are another. But the exploiting of these woke ideas for marketing purposes (if that's what you mean) is another beast all together. Closer to how YouTube and Twitter etc trade in controversy for the $$$.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Biker79 wrote: »

" Woke ' and ' Social Inclusion ' are elements of a global cult. Their simplistic tenets are purposely designed to travel unchecked through social media to the smartphones of lonely, vulnerable people all over the world.

They have created a ready market of righteous but naive consumers, hooked into their smartphones, and willing to buy whatever advertisers on social platforms sell to them. Its marketing genius.

Woke-ism reminds me of Miss World* taking the stage to tearfully wish for world peace. Endearing, well-meaning fo sure...but obviously not to be taken in any way seriously.

(Except that wokies are often bitter and not very photogenic) *

That's soceity general - look at the situation with right-wing activism on the QAnon crowd in the US (not global, I know, but an example of media manipulating people to be morally outraged). Even down to capitalism with MAGA merchandising.

Biker79

km991148 wrote: »

Mass consumerism and capitalism are one thing and "woke ideologies" as this thread would put it are another. But the exploiting of these woke ideas for marketing purposes (if that's what you mean) is another beast all together. Closer to how YouTube and Twitter etc trade in controversy for the $$$.

It's not only controversy that has currency on social platforms - its victimhood and outrage, which are manufactured and stoked by the engagement tools of social platforms to create data to sell on to advertisers.

You can trace the development of Woke and Social Inclusion ideologies from about 2007/ 2008. This was when the first smartphones began to appear alongside mass-market social media platforms.

km991148

Biker79 wrote: »

It's not only controversy that has currency on social platforms - its victimhood and outrage, which are manufactured and stoked by the engagement tools of social platforms to create data to sell on to advertisers.

You can trace the development of Woke and Social Inclusion ideologies from about 2007/ 2008. This was when the first smartphones began to appear alongside mass-market social media platforms.

I don't think the social platforms favour one extreme over the other. Controversy doesn't care about right vs left. What is one persons controversy is another persons common sense.

Doesn't really fit into the preserve of the woke brigade only.

Danzy

km991148 wrote: »

Mass consumerism and capitalism are one thing and "woke ideologies" as this thread would put it are another. But the exploiting of these woke ideas for marketing purposes (if that's what you mean) is another beast all together. Closer to how YouTube and Twitter etc trade in controversy for the $$$.

Mass consumerism, Capitalism and Woke ideologies are all linked. Woke is the grandkids if Thatcher and Reagan.

Woke, progressives, whether centre or Left tend to be upper middle class.

Anarchists in Dublin are more likely to have gone to Blackrock College than Moyle Park in Clondalkin.


Woke, left wing radicalism etc are growing because it's the politics of young wealthy people.

It's popular in marketing and big corporations because they have income to spend and they are the type working in such places.

silverharp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's not the idea behind it at all - what in the hell give you the idea that it was? I'm not saying this isn't the effect it's having, or this isn't what's happening, but this shows a gross lack of understandung to the original concept and motivations.

the post modernists look at it this way , they describe their ideas in terms of infecting the system. Im sure well meaning people wouldnt see it that way, but go back a couple of steps to the intellectual backdrop of people like Derrida and its there

Necro

Mod:

AllForIt's threadban lifted after discussion with user

km991148

Danzy wrote: »

Mass consumerism, Capitalism and Woke ideologies are all linked. Woke is the grandkids if Thatcher and Reagan.

Woke, progressives, whether centre or Left tend to be upper middle class.

Anarchists in Dublin are more likely to have gone to Blackrock College than Moyle Park in Clondalkin.


Woke, left wing radicalism etc are growing because it's the politics of young wealthy people.

It's popular in marketing and big corporations because they have income to spend and they are the type working in such places.

That's what I said - they are linked because companies exploit causes for marketing.

The rest of the comments on the last few posts are really just mass generalisations, some of which may or may not be true to some extent - but I don't want to ruin the fun of the thread - carry on!

Biker79

I don't think the social platforms favour one extreme over the other. Controversy doesn't care about right vs left. What is one person's controversy is another person's common sense.

Doesn't really fit into the preserve of the woke brigade only.

The great coup that Woke has pulled off is making it aspirational. Celebs, senior marketing/sales execs, Technology execs - everyone wants to signal their virtue because it has an association with higher social status. People further down the food chain lap it up.

This distinguishes it from anything else that is stoked by social media, such as conspiracy theories, which are often sneered at despite some of them being well-grounded in truth. Sneering at conspiracy theories is another way of trying to claim higher social status without earning it. They may be untrue, but they are harmless ways for ordinary people to figure out how the world works. They do it through fantastical stories, which is the way it was always done, just like it was in the Bible.

Unlike Woke ideologies, there is no risk of cultural & institutional damage with QAnon/ CTs. The way events in the US have played out over the last 8 months is evidence of this. Going back a lot further than 8 months actually.

biko

Don't lose weight. Is fatphobic...

https://twitter.com/pixiiefrida/status/1345957924204646400?s=19

Hellokitty1212

Saw this nonsense online.

No it’s not.

km991148

Biker79 wrote: »

The great coup that Woke has pulled off is making it aspirational. Celebs, senior marketing/sales execs, Technology execs - everyone wants to signal their virtue because it has an association with higher social status. People further down the food chain lap it up.

This distinguishes it from anything else that is stoked by social media, such as conspiracy theories, which are often sneered at despite some of them being well-grounded in truth. Sneering at conspiracy theories is another way of trying to claim higher social status without earning it. They may be untrue, but they are harmless ways for ordinary people to figure out how the world works. They do it through fantastical stories, which is the way it was always done, just like it was in the Bible.

Unlike Woke ideologies, there is no risk of cultural & institutional damage with QAnon/ CTs. The way events in the US have played out over the last 8 months is evidence of this. Going back a lot further than 8 months actually.

I disagree with most of what you say, but I dont really want to get in to it because it will derail the thread AND will lead to accusations of me sneering at conspiracy theories, being woke or something else.. so agree to disagree is the only solution here!

Hellokitty1212

I don’t get why Serena Williams being called too old and too fat by a tournament site it is “racist”.

I don’t think she’s either myself but if it was said about say Kim Clijsters there would be no racism accusation.

It’s doing no one any favors.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

silverharp wrote: »

the post modernists look at it this way , they describe their ideas in terms of infecting the system. Im sure well meaning people wouldnt see it that way, but go back a couple of steps to the intellectual backdrop of people like Derrida and its there

SJWs would consider themselves as well meaning people, even though most others wouldn.t.

I'd argue they feel that they're improving the existing order rather than destroying or infecting it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

SJWs would consider themselves as well meaning people, even though most others wouldn.t.

I'd argue they feel that they're improving the existing order rather than destroying or infecting it.

It really depends on far they've "educated" themselves before committing themselves to their particular cause.

If you look at a lot of feminist literature (which tends to be the basis for a lot of social change, due to it's success), or race theory (consider how BLM approach the existing social systems and their desire to burn/destroy those systems), there is a lot of emphasis on the destruction of existing systems, before a newer 'better' (preferred) system can be implemented. Using what you can of what went before (to justify and reinforce your agenda), but ultimately destroying what is 'wrong' and replacing it with something better.

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar because it appears so often on various blogs, and article pieces (related to the subject). Besides, those who want to appear authoritative on a subject will refer often to the experts/"research" papers that support their viewpoints. So.. many will be exposed to that literature, and while they may not have gone in-depth on the material, they've been exposed to the main talking points, repeatedly.

Tony EH

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest. Most of these type of "activists" are interested ONLY in their immediate cause and couldn't care less about anything else beyond the issue they've latched onto. A certain "rights for so and so" voice probably wouldn't be interested in "rights for such and such". It wouldn't matter that much to them.

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong. A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest.

Actually... I'm not. I don't think I said anything in the previous post to suggest that I was...

They don't need to be active outside of their "bubble'. Social media, by it's nature, will have people who will share what they consider relatable and what supports the agenda of their bubble..

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong.

Which I haven't done. Oh! I'll use SJW as a catch-all term, in terms of the desire for social change, but someone wanting equality of outcome doesn't necessarily wants racial equality. People are far more complex than that.

A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

Sure, I get that.. although what you've read tends to affect your perceptions somewhat. I know that the material I've read, even though I disagree with the vast majority of it, has affected the way I look at certain topics. Not the way the original authors likely wished for me to be affected, but affected nonetheless.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

Depends on the situation. When looking at race issues, one could throw out the term of SJW, or again, with feminist/women's rights, or trans issues. The context is provided first.. which is usually the case, due to the circumstances leading to the use of "SJW".

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

Nope. I don't buy it. Oh, I agree that some are simply naive. Some are ignorant. Some are outright idiotic. However, I have attended Male Rights events where SJW activists campaigned against the event, and some were very clued into their reality. Not open to appreciating other realities, or dealing with facts.. but still.. very good at citing the popular research or statements which supported their viewpoints. Not terribly friendly towards anyone who argued against them, but that's just the way things are with these kind of crusaders. [Oh,... and the middle class trope... I dunno. I know a variety of people who are self-acclaimed SJW, very active on social issues, and aren't middle class. I've noticed people like to assign all this to the middle class, and while that might have been true 50 years ago, times have changed. Education, and social mobility are light years different now. The access to social media, and finding your 'bubble' means that "class" has less importance than ever before]

.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually... I'm not. I don't think I said anything in the previous post to suggest that I was...

They don't need to be active outside of their "bubble'. Social media, by it's nature, will have people who will share what they consider relatable and what supports the agenda of their bubble..

You typed

Deleted User wrote: »

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar

which suggested otherwise.

In any case, while it might be true that a certain "activist" might dip their toe into something else if there's possible overlap, I wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that "SJWs" are all marching in lockstep and are even remotely interested in other areas of anything at all much.

In fact, from what I have read, a lot of them seem to be woefully ignorant of a lot of things, including much of the grievances that they bleat on about and the targets they have in their sights.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I haven't done. Oh! I'll use SJW as a catch-all term, in terms of the desire for social change, but someone wanting equality of outcome doesn't necessarily wants racial equality. People are far more complex than that.

Which is the problem I'm talking about. One SJW isn't necessarily the same as another one. In fact, there could be significant disagreements and even outright aggression involved between them. Just look at the Trans rights crowd and their run ins with feminists of all hues.

But sure, people are more "complex" than that in all areas. Things just get muddied, especially when they're strawmanned by other groups with their own agendas.

And no, I'm not saying you're trying to do that here.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. I don't buy it. Oh, I agree that some are simply naive. Some are ignorant. Some are outright idiotic. However, I have attended Male Rights events where SJW activists campaigned against the event, and some were very clued into their reality. Not open to appreciating other realities, or dealing with facts.. but still.. very good at citing the popular research or statements which supported their viewpoints. Not terribly friendly towards anyone who argued against them, but that's just the way things are with these kind of crusaders.

You don't have to buy it, it doesn't matter. The fact remains, however, that many of these so called "SJWs" believe, rightly or wrongly, that what they're doing is for the betterment of everyone, or at least the group they belong to, or have chosen to speak on behalf of.

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

^
The problem with this is that you're assuming that all "SJWs" are active in things that are outside of their own bubble of interest. Most of these type of "activists" are interested ONLY in their immediate cause and couldn't care less about anything else beyond the issue they've latched onto. A certain "rights for so and so" voice probably wouldn't be interested in "rights for such and such". It wouldn't matter that much to them.

This is why lumping all of these voices together into one pot is just flat out wrong. A RadFem might have read deeply into various aspects of Third Wave Feminism, but that doesn't mean they give a crap about anything else (not even original feminist works) and it doesn't mean that activists for another social justice cause will have read (or even agree with) the RadFem stuff.

All of this so called "SJW" campaigning is so disparate that trying assign an umbrella to it is, not only, pointless, it's silly.

As PCB points out, most of these people are simply naive. They believe that they've discovered a "right on" cause to pursue and they follow through with various levels of participation. But there's no joined up thinking going on and, more often than not, it's usually just some middle class kid who's spending a bit of time playing with right on issues on behalf of a community that never asked them to, before they move onto something else later in life and forget the issue they were some full on about.

I'm not sure that is the case. Isn't the whole point of intersectionality that all of these issues mesh with each other to create forms of oppression?

Pick a random SJW from Twitter and they're nearly guaranteed to have the same core set of beliefs. Always pro-choice, always pro-BLM. Always feminist. Always borderline hysterical about climate change. Almost always either a hard-core atheist OR a non-Christian religion. Often a vegetarian of some shape or form. Prone to spouting the most bizarre, logically inconsistent talking points - Germaine Greer isn't a feminist and Kanye West isn't black. Abortion is healthcare but killing a chicken for the pot is murder. Western beauty standards are oppressive but the burka is a symbol of empowerment.

Most people are capable of holding nuanced opinions but the woke types seem to exist only as the most fanatical, ideologically rigid caricatures. It's likely down to a combination of too much time spent in echo chambers and living with the prospect of being cancelled for expressing one wrong opinion or liking the wrong tweet.

Agree with your last point though. The real world has a funny old way of knocking common sense into people as they get older.

Tony EH

46 Long wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case. Isn't the whole point of intersectionality that all of these issues mesh with each other to create forms of oppression?

Pick a random SJW from Twitter and they're nearly guaranteed to have the same core set of beliefs. Always pro-choice, always pro-BLM. Always feminist. Always borderline hysterical about climate change. Almost always either a hard-core atheist OR a non-Christian religion. Often a vegetarian of some shape or form. Prone to spouting the most bizarre, logically inconsistent talking points - Germaine Greer isn't a feminist and Kanye West isn't black. Abortion is healthcare but killing a chicken for the pot is murder. Western beauty standards are oppressive but the burka is a symbol of empowerment.

You've just contradicted your point there and demonstrated what I was talking about.

There's often large degrees of separation with the various types of "SJW" up to an including outright hostility.

I don't see any of these special interest people or groups to be unified in any real way, other than they have a grievance of some sort and are vocal about it, often to the point of being absurdist. They may give lip service to one another from time to time, but they are too clung onto their own little corner of the victimisation Olympics to to truly be in cahoots, as some try to make out.

At the end of the day these elements are largely diverse and in many cases worlds apart in realistic terms.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

It really depends on far they've "educated" themselves before committing themselves to their particular cause.

If you look at a lot of feminist literature (which tends to be the basis for a lot of social change, due to it's success), or race theory (consider how BLM approach the existing social systems and their desire to burn/destroy those systems), there is a lot of emphasis on the destruction of existing systems, before a newer 'better' (preferred) system can be implemented. Using what you can of what went before (to justify and reinforce your agenda), but ultimately destroying what is 'wrong' and replacing it with something better.

Like I've read a fair bit of 'radical' feminist theory, without being an expert.. and I suspect most SJWs have done similar because it appears so often on various blogs, and article pieces (related to the subject). Besides, those who want to appear authoritative on a subject will refer often to the experts/"research" papers that support their viewpoints. So.. many will be exposed to that literature, and while they may not have gone in-depth on the material, they've been exposed to the main talking points, repeatedly.

Again, I said feeling like they're making the world a better place, not actually making the world a better place. That's the difference. And they'll feel like they are regardless of how educated or intelligent they are.

Regarding the bit in bold - that doesn;t nessecarily mean an entire system 0 just elements of it that they feel are injust.

What "system" are they trying to destroy? And exactly what ais there ideal repalcement (regardless of how realistic it is)?

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

You've just contradicted your point there and demonstrated what I was talking about.

The sections you highlighted in bold are not contradictory. You will never find a non-feminist SJW. And they do genuinely believe that Greer is not a feminist because she doesn't believe that men can become women.

Tony EH

46 Long wrote: »

The sections you highlighted in bold are not contradictory. You will never find a non-feminist SJW. And they do genuinely believe that Greer is not a feminist because she doesn't believe that men can become women.

You're making VERY broad statements here.

Not every "SJW" believes in every other "SJW" talking point.



BTW, you'll even find feminists that will disagree with other areas of feminism to surprising degrees too. It isn't all the same.

46 Long

Tony EH wrote: »

You're making VERY broad statements here.

Not every "SJW" believes in every other "SJW" talking point.

Like I said, caricatures.

Social media is infested with these wretched creatures. Spend five minutes on Twitter and you'll know what I mean.