Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: How long will "wokeism" be a thing?
It's already starting to die 25 20.16%
The next 5-10 years 27 21.77%
The next 10-20 years (a whole generation) 13 10.48%
It's here to stay, get used to hating George Washington 59 47.58%
Voters: 124. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2021, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Rural Wisconsin
19,649 posts, read 9,192,474 times
Reputation: 38048

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000 View Post
This is too long to read all of it now, but I did search this thread for the word "considerate" and didn't find it. That's basically what being woke is, being considerate of others' sensibilities. If a group finds certain words, structures, institutions, or narratives offensive, it's only considerate to take their feelings into consideration and look for a way forward that does not demean them. If you reject being a decent person, of course, others might take offense.
What I find both interesting and revealing is the hypocrisy of someone on the left saying that people on the right should be more considerate toward those who have different views, without believing and saying the opposite also applies. To quote the above, "That's basically what being woke is, being considerate of others' sensibilities [and] that if a group finds certain words, structures, institutions, or narratives offensive, it's only considerate to take their feelings into consideration and look for a way forward that does not demean them".

Please -- this is a challenge -- why should rules apply to one side of the political spectrum but not the other? Because you say so and only your side is right and moral? I don't THINK so!

P.S. Btw, I am not a Trump supporter, and I hate racism and bigotry -- but I also hate being lectured by someone who claims to be my moral superior.

Last edited by katharsis; 02-03-2021 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2021, 01:12 PM
 
72,874 posts, read 62,362,868 times
Reputation: 21825
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlakeJones View Post
The woke era will end when the "Victimhood/Safety Culture" ends on the college campus and returns to a Truth Culture

Here is a fantastic presentation at Duke University in 2016 which explains exactly how we got here, it has aged AMAZINGLY well:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatn5ameRr8
I disagree, mostly because of history. I went and looked up "woke". This is what I came up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

"Woke" might be very prevalent in the colleges/universities. However, getting rid of it there won't get rid of it entirely. It started under Lincoln, and then the likes of Marcus Garvey really got into it. He was telling Black people to "get woke", basically.

"Woke" in most universities has only been a thing since the 1960s. This is what I see. The universities attract the "woke". What we're seeing is echoing what said universities are already attracting. "Woke" began before there was any such thing as "victimhood culture".

And there is one more thing I want to close with. Alot of "woke" came out of the Black population, particularly the inner city, during the 1950s and 60s. The Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, the riots, etc. Malcolm X got involved in the Nation of Islam during the late 1940s/early 1950s while in prison. Consider the riots that happened during the 1960s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2021, 01:27 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000 View Post
If you know what is offensive and what is not and you still choose to offend, is that moral?
As a parent, part of your job is to offend your children. If you aren't offending your children regularly, you either have an amazing kid, or you aren't doing your job.

When you get onto a kid, they go to their room and cry. They whine about how mean you are. That you're boring and you ruin their life, or that you embarrass them in front of their friends, or whatever.

Then twenty or thirty years later they look back and realize you were right.


To offend someone is to say things they don't want to hear. Thus to never offend means to never judge, to never criticize, to never object. A world where no one ever offends, would be a world of complete permissiveness or indifference.


Back in 2004, Chris Rock jokingly said that his #1 job as a father is to keep his daughter "off the pole".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFjBYjFHUIk

Well, what is wrong with the pole? Are strippers bad people? Isn't he just ****-shaming? Isn't there a push to legalize and normalize prostitution? Will we someday look back at Chris Rock's "keep her off the pole" joke as being insensitive to women and/or sex workers?

Will the people in the future look back on Chris Rock as a sexist conservative bigot?


A few years back the issue of same-sex marriage went before the Supreme Court. The court ruled that restrictions on same-sex marriage violated the equal-protection clause. Now, regardless of how you feel about the issue itself, there was a lot of talk about whether the same argument could be made for polygamy.

So let me ask you, will polygamy be legal in the future? Is there anything wrong with polygamy? And might it eventually be considered offensive to be opposed to polygamy?

Much of what is happening today would have seemed absurd or impossible just thirty years ago. Where will we be in another thirty years?

I have a libertarian friend who believes prostitution should be 100% legal. He doesn't just think that making it illegal does more harm than good, he is a true advocate. He doesn't believe there is anything wrong with it. That it should be treated as normal and acceptable, just another job.

I asked him how he would feel if his sister was a prostitute. He said he wouldn't care. I asked him, what if your mother had been a prostitute? And what if you were the son of one of her Johns?

I figured that would have shown him the folly of his beliefs, but he was unrelenting. He said he still wouldn't care, and that a lot of children don't know their fathers anyway(which will likely be more common in the future).


Leftists imagine that they're the angels. That they're fighting for equality, tolerance, respect, dignity, acceptance, etc. But what is the point? What is the goal of anything?

Happiness. That is the end we are all pursuing. That is the point of equality. That is the point of tolerance. That is the point of acceptance. That is the point of everything. But are leftists making us happier? Is our collective refusal to offend making the world better?

If not, then liberals aren't the angels they imagine themselves. Rather, they're the devils, making a hell of Earth, whether they have good intentions or not.

Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-03-2021 at 01:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2021, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
14,856 posts, read 8,179,887 times
Reputation: 4590
Quote:
Originally Posted by crewship View Post
The extinction of the white settlers was generally not their mindset. Regional and trade dominance, redressing of perceived grievance, yes, but not what we would call genocide.
They tried to kill every white person on the continent, and if they hadn't been stopped they would have.

Regardless, I'm a Machiavellian, or at least I think he was correct. Governments don't want to kill anyone. Nor do governments want to take away anyone's freedom. The only motivation for governments is power. Everything they do is to that end. And in every government it is the "elites" who rule, democracy or not.

An argument could be made that even if the Native-Americans were attempting to genocide the Europeans, that in a way they were acting in self-defense. As you know, the only way to have prevented what happened to the Native-Americans, would have been for them to have murdered every white person who landed on these shores. Had Christopher Columbus never returned to Europe in 1492, history would be completely different.

But why did the European powers want colonies in the New World? When Britain created its first colony in the United States, it was in a ongoing war/rivalry with Spain. The primary reason the Roanoke colony failed was because of the Anglo-Spanish War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-...r_(1585–1604)

Imagine if Britain had never colonized North America. What would have happened? All of the United States and Canada would speak French. Would that have been better?

The European powers were geopolitical rivals who could only gain power by dominating and monopolizing valuable resources/commodities. Britain used its Navy to control the world's shipping, becoming a financial and trading empire which made it the most powerful country in the world for 150 years. Prior to that it was the Spanish, owing to all the gold and silver from their American colonies. The United States became the preeminent world power owing to our massive territory, and our dominance of the Western Hemisphere through the Monroe Doctrine. And China may become the dominant power through its massive economy and population.

The entire world is in a Darwinian struggle for power, and always has been. The desire for power/control explains 99.9% of world history.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIhMJGWiM8

Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-03-2021 at 02:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2021, 09:10 PM
 
Location: New York City
19,061 posts, read 12,663,410 times
Reputation: 14781
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
I disagree, mostly because of history. I went and looked up "woke". This is what I came up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
lol, wikipedia ahahaaha

Somehow you missed the front page of wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe...eliable_source
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2021, 07:41 AM
 
3,732 posts, read 1,427,140 times
Reputation: 1872
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner View Post
This kind of stuff really isn't limited to the Anglo-Saxon world either. In many cases, "woke" is a response to being oppressed. I'll get back to that in a moment.

John Brown is a hero to me. He understood that violence is often the only way to get freedom. Slave owners had to be violently dealt with. And he isn't alone in terms of slave rebellions.

Which is where I get back to this stuff not being limited to Anglo-Saxons. Consider all of the slave rebellions that Black people put together. Stono River, Nat Turner's Rebellion, the rebellion in Haiti that would lead to Haiti's independence. By the way, Napoleon sent Polish mercenaries to put down the slave rebellion. Many Polish mercenaries turned against Napoleon and sided with the slaves, who just wanted their freedom. Poland was one of the first places in the world to abolish slaves.

And then consider this. You mention the Quakers. Some of that Great Awakening made its way to Germany. The Mennonites are a good example of this. Lutheranism too. The Reformation started in Germany.

Black liberation theology did not start with Dr. King. Go look up Marcus Garvey. He preached his own version of "let's go back to Africa" and he started the UNIA. The African Orthodox Church formed out of it.

And think about this. 45% of those who went with Jim Jones to Jonestown were Black women. Black women were the ones who were sticking with Johes at the highest rates. Many of his White followers started to think he was nuts and left him.



The secular woke stuff also loomed large in the Black American population, but on a different level. Black Panthers, Nation of Islam, UNIA, etc. One of the tenets of the Black Panthers was Marxism. And the persons who were the most receptive to it were Black people living in the ghettos. While "woke" isn't taken on in poorer countries, it has taken on for Black Americans living in some of the worst conditions in America.



Among Whites, the "woke" movement is among the bourgeoisie.




The "woke" ideology might live on, but I see it being co-opted with other movements. I think about this. There have certainly been a share of White Anglo leftist movements. However, I also think about this. The "woke" movements among Black Americans had alot of roots in dealing with oppression. What happened later on was that many movements that had nothing to do with the Black community started to emerge and try to co-opt the movement.

There has always been some kind of "woke" in some form or fashion. However, it varies based on the cause, the time, the place, and the events going on.
There are two woke movements. One in the protestant churches and secular mainly from academia which started in the 60s and 50 years later returned back in academia. These things come and go. And no mlk is not woke, but great awakening of the 1950s had a huge impact on mlk and Billy Graham, and even the likes of Jim Jones. And when I mean Anglo Saxon. I mean everyone that lives in such culture which also includes black people too. And yes I left out Garvey, Garvey did start black liberation movement and the back to Africa movement. Polish officers sent to Haiti never went back to Europe and ended up marrying Haitian women. What brought Haitians and polish people together is that both share the same religion catholicism and not protestism. And yes the woke movements you see today has been copted. And who fault is that? You black folks fault. Why? You black folks love whitie. David Carroll and youtube talks about this stuff and he is right. BLM movement for example is no threat to capitalism even though the creators are trained Marxist. Even though BLM rioters burned down businesses of the business donor class which is replaceable via insurance. BLM did not raid capitol hill or hijack wall street via gamestop. Thus causing loss of billions of dollars to the business donor class. Money on Wall Street, and donations to politicians are not replaceable vs burning down a cvs. The biggest issue America faces is not racsim and white supremacy. No it is class and economics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2021, 07:48 AM
 
9,702 posts, read 4,533,507 times
Reputation: 7410
'woke' just an extension of old school political correctness used for virtue signaling by most.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2021, 07:52 AM
 
3,732 posts, read 1,427,140 times
Reputation: 1872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
They tried to kill every white person on the continent, and if they hadn't been stopped they would have.

Regardless, I'm a Machiavellian, or at least I think he was correct. Governments don't want to kill anyone. Nor do governments want to take away anyone's freedom. The only motivation for governments is power. Everything they do is to that end. And in every government it is the "elites" who rule, democracy or not.

An argument could be made that even if the Native-Americans were attempting to genocide the Europeans, that in a way they were acting in self-defense. As you know, the only way to have prevented what happened to the Native-Americans, would have been for them to have murdered every white person who landed on these shores. Had Christopher Columbus never returned to Europe in 1492, history would be completely different.

But why did the European powers want colonies in the New World? When Britain created its first colony in the United States, it was in a ongoing war/rivalry with Spain. The primary reason the Roanoke colony failed was because of the Anglo-Spanish War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-...r_(1585–1604)

Imagine if Britain had never colonized North America. What would have happened? All of the United States and Canada would speak French. Would that have been better?

The European powers were geopolitical rivals who could only gain power by dominating and monopolizing valuable resources/commodities. Britain used its Navy to control the world's shipping, becoming a financial and trading empire which made it the most powerful country in the world for 150 years. Prior to that it was the Spanish, owing to all the gold and silver from their American colonies. The United States became the preeminent world power owing to our massive territory, and our dominance of the Western Hemisphere through the Monroe Doctrine. And China may become the dominant power through its massive economy and population.

The entire world is in a Darwinian struggle for power, and always has been. The desire for power/control explains 99.9% of world history.


www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPIhMJGWiM8
This is very true. And sadly. People don't want to hear the truth. 500 years the west dominated the globe. Prior to the west it was the east like turks, Arabs and the Mongols. Spain become the economic global power house and later Dutch briefly than the British , and now British former child colony the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2021, 10:30 AM
 
Location: New York City
19,061 posts, read 12,663,410 times
Reputation: 14781

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l6JUNFAJ9o
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2021, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Seattle
5,117 posts, read 2,149,534 times
Reputation: 6228
It will never end until the media stops pouring gas on the fire....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:49 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top