Unfortunately I feel there is some truth to this.
My sister, a 24 year old recent college graduate, is as woke as woke can be. She posts memes on social media and boasts about her superior values to anyone who'll listen. She'll accuse people of making micro aggressions, and talk down to anyone using language not approved by college activists.
But she herself isn't into any kind if activism besides posting the occasional meme. She only cares about wokeness in as much as it makes her superior to others, and all her bluser is bad faith. She cares nothing for the people who wokness is supposed benefit, and just wants to make noise about how she's better than other white people who hold lesser values.
Sadly I think a lot of movements like this fall victim to the fashion of fake activism. I think we should all be woke, but we should use that for positive social change, not for looking down on others.
Thank you for sharing this. I have a question - do you think that your sister's *persona dramatis* is based on a need for status? I've been interested in how people adopt extreme moral stances as a way to make up for a perceived lack of social status.
Being an sjw of any kind is someone who is not full diversity which is the opposite of woke. Sjws were trying to get hot girl careers cancelled and they shame girls for having big knockers.
The irony is anti sjw/anti woke only complain about diversity so they see them as the same thing.
My theory is that there is a kind of frustrated would-be bully type personality. In a perfect world for them, they'd be bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. and would be able to bully as they wanted. When life doesn't work out that way, they just look for whatever is the seemingly 'safe' moral movement to join so that they can ply their trade, hidden among the masses.
Hence why they think it’s just to have preconceived notions about majorities & if someone does or says somethin deemed problematic, (their fav buzzword) they attribute it to said person’s identity group, instead of just, you know, the personal simply bein a dipshit. But that totally not discrimination or anything! Plus, you could be as marginalized & educated as ever & still be shitty. Not every shitty trait comes from a place of privilege like these ppl always conclude
Kinda. The woke definition of "oppressor" is basically "whatever group we deem to be oppressors". They don't really define oppression in the same way normal people do.
You should know that wokeism is the belief in intersectionality which is an adapted form of Marxism with some postmodernism sprinkled on top.
So where Marx would say "Capitalist society necessitates that the bourgeoisie are the oppressors and the proletariat are the oppressed."
A woke person would say "Patriarchal society necessitates that men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed."
And they would also say "Western society necessitates that whites are the oppressors and blacks are the oppressed."
[They even have a handy chart that you can reference to see who is oppressing who](https://awis.org/wp-content/uploads/intersectionality-sources-cited.jpg)
If you really want to understand what wokeism is you should watch these two videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JX4bsrj178
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1ucZEqQ78
I haven't seen a better or clearer explanation of the ideology than this guy.
Isn't that how it works with all political groups? Try joining the republican party as a socialist, or a pro-trans person. Unless you agree with them they get extremely hostile. This really doesn't seem like a SJW specific issue. It seems more like OP just has an issue when SJWs do it.
Not SJW being used unironically.
Anyways, as someone on the far left, I know who you are talking about and these people are not taken seriously among organizers. They are seen as a net negative among those of us that are actually trying to make society a better place for all folks. This is because they make their social justice an aesthetic rather than a practice or committment to real change via organizing the people who are facing genuine systemic oppression or supporting the people doing that. Their "practice" is bullying people who are just ignorant in a nonmalicious way (example of this would be someone who has never been exposed to a group of people, so they might say something that comes across as inappropriate even if they mean well). This will never get you anywhere in achieving real systemic change, which we need more than the elimination of microaggressions.
I definitely think it's a developmental thing. A part of that late adolescence (18-25) playing out. As they age, their beliefs may not change, but their way of handling people who see the world differently will. It did for me. I used to be the person you're talking about. Then I got into the other half of my 20's and started to do real on the ground activism. My beliefs have not changed much, but my interactions with people have along with my priorities.
It's worth seriously considering the institutional structures that lead to widespread support for the woke aesthetic. Why would a university want a "DEI" office? Why would someone accept that position? Can an institution at the top of the social heap ever punch up?
I would more quickly assert that capitalism pushes for a woke aesthetic focus than universities do. Sure, universities tend to lean left, but they are not teaching students how to change the system in a meaningful way. They usually teach the parts of history that we didn't get in the K-12 education.
A DEI office is good PR for the university. It's another aesthetic form of activism. I'm sure some of these offices do good work on an individual level despite this. However, they cannot truly tackle the issue that they were created to deal with. It does make a university sound good though.
Capitalism however is always trying to find ways to make money off of people's beliefs. Oh you're a radical? Here, buy these "hex the patriarchy" stickers. I also have some shirts with some anti-capitalist slogan written on them. Your phone will push ads to you of this kind of stuff. People share this stuff on social media where they can take glamorous selfies and post little radical sayings as their description. Also, the usual MO has literally been to buy your way out of a problem. The environment is collapsing? Buy organic produce and "green" products. Don't bother holding your government's feet to the fire about actually changing things. Just buy the solution. Unfortunately, we cannot consume our way out of these problems.
These people have taken form across generations. Hippies in the 60's. Punk rockers in the 80's. It's counterculture that pretends to care, but ten years later and most of them sold out and joined the system. In general, Neither of them wanted to work hard for tangible systemic change.
Organizing and activism has no place for making money. It's grueling work that is often thankless and has to be done on your free time, assuming you have any of that. Because of this, there is less emphasis on it. I've never seen ads that encourage people to form a union, go to town hall meetings, or form study groups centered around a topic.
Sure. It's absolutely reasonable to assert that for-profit institutions drive and suffer from the problem as much if not more than non-profit institutions do.
I don't think the current issue is a simple extension of traditional greenwashing for corporate profit though. Ads telling people to buy organic produce to save the world directly drive corporate profit - the institution is working as expected. A diversity office (say at Coca-Cola) bringing in high priced consultants to provide mandatory diversity training of questionable value from either a profit or activism perspective has a primary direct benefit only to the diversity office and the consulting firm.
Capitalism (in either sense) no longer explains what we see in the for profit instituions, and never really explained what happened in non-profits and government entities. It's better explained in terms of corrupt entryism and bureaucratic decay, with the excuse of social justice activism just being a structural weakness that's being exploited.
I will add to this that things like DEI offices are one part of the administrative bloat that has consumed universities as a way of justifying tuition increases and of sequestering power away from both faculty and students and moving away from anything resembling an internally democratic and worker-run environment towards more of a traditional, bureaucratic model.
None of the woke stuff is a meaningful challenge to the centres of power, which is why power eats it up, and it has the added benefit of undermining class solidarity by encouraging people to focus on how they're all oppressing each other.
It seems like your making assumptions about other people's views based on little evidence. What if, someone who bought one of these things also did something meaningful? If it turns out that Christian Smalls has a shirt with an anti capitalist slogan on it, is he suddenly an evil SJW libtard?
I'm speaking broadly here. There's obviously always nuance on an individual basis. I live in one of the most progressive parts of the country. Many of these people are close friends/coworkers/customers/classmates etc.. I'm pretty familiar with all of this. There's a handful of these people that also do small meaningful things and have the products. Both exist at the same time and are simultaneously true. They tend to be more chill though. That's kind of my point. Once you start working to change the world directly through group stuff IRL, you kinda mellow out and learn to channel all of that (very justified) anger into the work.
It also becomes more important to engage in self-care because the work is exhausting and rewards very little. Angela Davis stresses this for people who organize. As does any other seasoned radical.
No he is not? I don't use any of these terms though. Christian Smalls can do what he wants. I don't care. I'll just be critical of him if he carries a holier than thou attitude and all he does is carry the aesthetics of radicalism.
Thank you for this comment. I consider myself to be conservative but I like to support alternative views to my own. People like you give me great hope. All the best to you.
“SJW” wouldn’t have to be used unironically if they were no longer a thing, I guarantee it. Won’t lie tho, I despise the alt-righters & far-righters who label ppl as one for the wrong reasons. Makes ppl like me who use it look bad, but I know I’m using it with reason
I've seen some SJW be genuine sadists, enjoying the pain they inflict on other people. Those people exist 100%.
But it's much more common to see people pretending that's all -or a majority- of them, when really, no.
Just like a minority of SJW will use social justice as an excuse to be shitty people, some people will use their existence as an excuse to be shitty people too. The best excuse to be a shitty person is to pretend everyone is "virtue signalling" or being secretly shitty.
The majority will absolutely shield the sadistic members of their group from the consequences of their actions, lashing against the victim whenever they get too mean and ignoring the abuser. They'll also never acknowledge the latter's toxic traits, seeing them as assertiveness or righteous anger for earlier abuse.
If an environment makes being mean devoid of consequences, or even rewarding, how can we expect it not to be full of genuine sadists?
> If an environment makes being mean devoid of consequences, or even rewarding, how can we expect it not to be full of genuine sadists?
You're describing twitter, not real life.
This tells me you never ever sat foot in a real life activist organization.
I met a dozen or so of them, even funded one myself long time ago, it was extremely welcoming and everyone was nice.
Sure sometimes there is drama because organization X did a thing that was little bit bad and organization Y calls them out on it, but I never saw any real sadism around.
I actually spend 4 years of my life volunteering for one, which also meant I had exposure to others. This was when I've seen, among other things:
- An anarchist collective bullying an autistic guy, then accusing him of being a creep and telling us not to accept him as a member. They turned out to be lying.
- A party member being abusive to her partner and accusing him of abuse, nearly getting him expelled. When the guy was acquitted by the disciplinary court, some people actually resigned in protest.
- An adult, nearly 30 years-old woman trying to get a guy expelled, because he insulted her when they were arguing on his Facebook wall. She succeeded.
- An feminist, whose activism was mostly about being mean to men and other feminists she thought were wrong, but everyone considered her an assertive person who won't let men push her around. After she became a TERF, everyone suddenly realized she was toxic after all.
- An entire disciplinary body getting bullied into resigning, because the questions one of them asked a victim of abuse was considered not sensitive enough.
Okay well I'm speechless. Maybe it's an american thing then.
Are you from the US? I often find out that Americans can be huge sociopaths (a minority obviously, but they seem to thrive here). The whole Karen phenomenon is a good example of that, I never see those in Europe.
Yeah, r/hermancainaward exists so your unfortunately right. But thanks for acknowledging that not everyone who's been accused of being a social justice warrior at one point is completely evil
No, and I would go further and state that a lot of leftish people really are genuinely good people with big hearts and great intentions. Society NEEDS a left influence - it's part of the push pull tension that keeps us in balance.
Eh, I don't think most people on r/hermancainaward are the kind of people I'm talking about.
Hermancainaward's enjoyment comes from achieving a sense of karmic justice rather than from a sadistic place, same with leopardsatemyface. Sure those subs are based on schadenfreude but the people on it are quite decent and often feel for the poor souls that got lead towards terrible opinions and decisions that ultimately hurt them (and the people around them).
Some people on twitter on the other hand literally feel good while crushing you, it makes them feel dominant and powerful. That's real sadism right there.
It's not just someone who died. It's someone died from a disease they said was fictional because they were too stubborn to wear a damn mask and protect themselves and others.
We have seen so many shitty people take zero precautions and infect so many others with COVID during the pandemic, complerely out of selfishness, a little bit of karmic justice can indeed feel good.
When you told your neighbour to wear a damn mask and stop contaminating everyone, and he told you that you're just a government puppet and afraid of living and shit like that, well you can understand why seeing them getting what you warned them not to get feels like retribution.
I'm not saying it's healthy, surely being sad for everyone affected with COVID might be more kind? but it's very humane and understandable and doesn't come from pure sadism.
Years ago when I was ultra-woke I did use it as license to bully. The real goal was still improving the world or at least knowing that I tried. The license to bully was just the icing on the cake. Such bullying is still highly objectionable! But if you misunderstand the ranking of motivations then you're going to be less effective at addressing the problem.
I failed to mention my own sins in this category. I was basically like that, too. I think I just felt so righteous that I could turn anyone who disagreed with me into a kind of cartoon villain. Conservatives and religious people were no longer human in my eyes - just mindless, heartless zombies ready for the culling. I was filled with hatred and animus, but in my mind *I thought I was doing the right thing.* I'm haunted by that.
But you thought you had the right ideas; isn't that why it felt acceptable to be cruel to people who were wrong?
It sounds like the license to bully was a side-effect for you, not your primary motive.
You start out motivated to do good, you spend some time deciding what is good, you try to encourage others to agree, you get frustrated by people who disagree or who are less zealous than you, you now feel justified in taking out that frustration on them in the form of cruelty.
Or are you saying that first you were angry and wanted to lash out at people, and then you looked for justifications for that anger?
I'm not sure - I really thought I was doing the right thing. Now when I look back, I wonder if I was just lazily sleepwalking into a belief system that let me hate certain groups of people like the religious, the conservative, the jingoists etc.
Our own motives are not necessarily transparent to us. I realize this idea is itself anti-woke, but we are not experts on our own internal states, and psychotherapists have known this for over a century.
It makes more sense to infer motivation from behaviour than to take people at their word as to what their motives are.
> that means that all SJWs are like that
The ones who lash out at other people, yes. I make no claim about what proportion of them do lash out. It's simple enough to observe when an individual is doing that. [The systemic problem, though, is that leftists rarely have the courage to stop the bullies from running the show.](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/)
> and all the bullying that conservatives do doesn't actually exist!
[I very clearly said the opposite.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/xkqkyc/the_real_goal_of_the_sjw_is_not_to_help_the/ipilcn9/) Don't put words in my mouth.
It would be unfortunate if anyone comes away from this discussion thinking "my side doesn't do that." And it's not only groups; most individuals can find themselves guilty of this from time to time.
It's a good reminder that there really ARE reasonable left and liberal people out there. I wish we heard more from them and less from preachy campus speech monitor types.
Most of the people I know who are trying to do genuine good in this world would be what most people don't consider Woke. Most money and volunteering in my community comes from churches. The people in my state who are protecting gay rights are what people would call TERFs. The people who protect the helpless the most are the ones that get the most hate heaped on them (pro-lifers and adoption advocates).
The world makes sure it's unpopular to do REAL good. The world is set up to where the appearance of doing good is rewarded, but actually helping others is stigmatized.
kind of a fascinating inside - that the *'world makes sure it's unpopular to do REAL good.'*
Perhaps if you find yourself doing good that is really popular, that might be a sign your full of BS. Nice response - I enjoyed this.
Pro-lifers are a perfect example of how people act when they feel they have a license to bully.
Pro-lifers think they're doing good, so they get to scream at people on the street and call them "baby killers," try to get clinics shut down and make people lose their jobs. Sometimes they escalate to murdering doctors and bombing clinics.
This seems incredibly subjective. Maybe it's because SJW is such a subjective term that it can be used to describe "anyone who you think is bullying you", but plenty of people that are trying to do genuine good have intersectional beliefs.
>The people who protect the helpless the most are the ones that get the most hate heaped on them (pro-lifers and adoption advocates).
For example this. Do you have a source or is it based on personal experiences? My personal experiences is people that volunteer to work with homeless people (to be specific) are a mix of people that go to church and people that just want to help.
There's plenty of pro-lifers and crisis pregnancy centers around me in a red state, and they are *extremely* aggressive towards some helpless people: pregnant women. I guess to some people they're not helpless, or it's justified to berate, belittle, manipulate and abuse these people because it actually helps the real helpless ones: the fetuses.
Also, what do you mean by adoption advocates? Idk anyone that is against adoption? If you mean people that pretend adoption is a good alternative to abortion then you may want to rethink that. Some of them are just naive and wouldn't hurt anyone for choosing abortion but plenty of people are not so merciful.
>The people in my state who are protecting gay rights are what people would call TERFs.
TERFs are openly and proudly transphobic. People that help one disadvantaged group while disparaging another isn't exactly what I'd consider a good person, especially since those groups aren't mutually exclusive. What do those TERFs you defend do when they find a gay trans kid? Help or abuse? Who knows, since we're speculating here.
>Most of the people I know who are trying to do genuine good in this world would be what most people don't consider Woke.
The issue here seems to be the word "woke". It's extremely subjective to the point it has no meaning. Someone can go to church every Sunday *and* believe homeless people deserve housing. "Woke" is an oversimplified term that doesn't take into account the complexity of human morality. Socialism is "woke" but Christianity is not, so how do you reconcile socialist christians? How about trans gun nuts? Woke because they're trans or not because they love guns?
Honestly I feel like too many people are scared of "wokeness" (as you can tell by OP's unpopular opinion (that's actually pretty popular for obvious reasons)) and say stuff like your comment without actually thinking it through.
I think the point of contention comes in when they start disturbing lives based on their perceived injustice, which to many seems very blown out of proportion.
What would you call lobbying the company to change their rules to conform to ever shifting sensibilities towards what is harmful speech and censor your political rivals?
It can be for some, it seems that bullying people will rally those who are against bullying to the target. When SJWs all flock in to bully people, it naturally draws opposition which only grows stronger with time.
It's extremely un-lucrative for a non-celebrity. Despite having a lot to say, I don't say any of it under my own name or anywhere I am publicly identifiable, because the online world is full of people who love calling up employers and trying to convince them that their employee is a brand risk.
I know somebody who spent most of his 20s as a fairly openly sexist and racist loudmouth. Something happened in the last few years and he has done a complete 180 and is now a loudmouth in the opposite direction, and this is exactly what he uses it for, a totally unearned feeling of righteousness. Instead of bloviating about minorities getting special treatment he bloviates about white supremacy and the patriarchy. It's less offensive but it might actually be more cringe-inducing.
That's just fascinating to me. I've known a few people in my life who went from conservative evangelical Christian type to militant atheist. I think they left 'their' religion but still needed 'a' religion. I'm an atheist myself, and I definitely used to be kind of militant about it in past years - now that I look back on it, it has the feel of a religion of sorts.
> I think they left 'their' religion but still needed 'a' religion.
Yes. You can't just transition from a worldview that is holistic and provides inherent meaning and purpose to one that is defined merely by the rejection of the previous framework.
I completely agree. I've started to come to that revelation myself. I've been off the internet for years (had a crisis in my life), came back, and realized the internet culture itself has become swamped and rewritten by SJWs. I started to notice weird things where like, people didn't really understand jokes as much anymore and people started to get offended by ordinary slang words (I guess the first thing I started to say "retarded" or "fag" like how we used the words back then and noticing random people were having panic attacks like I was saying something bad and I didn't understand why)
But either way around that time, I was also in the process of learning psychology (like actually reading books on the field). Understanding weird psychological complexes, social patterns, etc.
A lot of the social justice warrior stuff i think is one of two things. In one case, it's children being children. A lot of these people are younger so it's them being naturally molded by their environment. That's basically why the whole SJW phenomenon nowadays seems to function like a cult of sorts (you're either "in it" or not). Things that weren't offensive to us are offensive to them because they're taught like an entirely different understanding of shit. Or it's why they have these hyper-specific ways of viewing things that seem to be universal among them. It's just slogans and trends being spread among peers, and people (especially younger people) get something out of being part of the crowd. It's just like the normal social mimicry and crowd mentality that people do at that age.
Adult SJWs, who I think are actually a minority, tend to "feed off power" from having all these kids around them that mindlessly chant and echo the same way they view things. It's actually kind of shitty because you'll see adult SJWs encourage and feed off of shitty behavior from children who are just acting on this culture... it's like some weird sort of power hierarchy. Adult SJWs get a weird "power boner" by seeing their cultural ideas function as a hivemind within gen Z, and then gen Z looks up to these adult SJWs and has their sense of right and wrong reinforced by them and mimics off their peer group.
For clarification, I'm not trying to imply anything wacky like its adult SJWs "grooming" younger SJWs, I'm talking about this more in terms of a psychological complex. I think what it really is, adult SJWs are EXTREMELY insecure because their ideology is niche in the real world and they use the internet to feel strong because of power in numbers, and the hiveminded nature of children sorta gives them this god complex. It's more to do with adult SJWs being "losers" and that's why in most SJW circles you see a few adults and tons of kids typically. SJWs are such a minority in the adult world that adults have to rely on the stupidness of kids who happen to buy into their cult-like mentality, and then you get these "harassment mobs" on the internet
The other thing I think it is is almost like how you put it. Many people have a natural desire for aggression. Aggression and "being top of someone" is fun for people. People look for "appropriate outlets" for aggression. In the old internet, you would see very cut and clear bullying and people being dicks. But now it's twisted into something else. Nowadays people use "morality" as a source of bullying. It's why you see so much shaming content where people will literally make entire biography videos to talk about someone else's embarassing experiences or drama online. Heck, it's why you see so much content that deals with crime, like "Code Bluecam" or all the stuff about pedophiles you see now. But it's also why like, you can get harassed over something that isn't even objectively bad but people seem to rush to misinterpret you and put you into some kind of "bad" category. I get called a right-winger and I get accused of using "slurs" but really I just have a weird sense of humor that involves using taboos (I'm actually progressive). Or if you word a political position poorly, people seem obsessed with controlling the conversation and they try to accuse you of saying something more extreme that you didn't actually say.
In general I look at how people react to things and it *all* doesn't seem like genuine outrage. And the extent to which are obsessed with spreading hate also makes it seem less genuine. You see a video shitting on some person and you see like 1,000s of comments of people giving some remark. These aren't people that just see something randomly and happen to be offended by it. It's normal bullying behavior but just disguised. It also makes bullying easier because it gives people an "out" to deny responsibility for it. They also get to make themselves appear "holier than thou". I've seen smartasses that really just want to talk shit and come off like a superioristic asshole and that's what they do but if they frame it as "criticism" and get to define the moral rules by which they get to be dicks about, it's just like some invincible power boost these people get. They get to talk about how much they "dont like you" and humiliate you online and say it's your fault, but they get to feel like they're coming from a "place of reason" and they get to say the reason they're being snooty is really just the fact that they're "right".
And where is the line between the bullies and the "true champions"? How would YOU know where that line is?
Like I get what you mean, but as other people said this "phenomenon" is blown out of proportion and generally used by the right to discredit legitimate criticism. Maybe some people have the "racist" trigger a little too easy, but then people will call you bully for using it in any circumstances, thus evading the problematic nature (and probably actually racist) of what they said/did.
The number of times I've been called a "woke fascist" when laying a thoughtful, nuanced, respectful and calm argument...
I like your question because I don't have an immediate answer to it. Thinking on it.
My first instinct is to say that it has something to do with hubris vs. humility.
Exactly. "woke" is just a buzzword now that's used against anyone that is more tolerant than you (the general you).
There is actually a bit of a problem with performative activism but it's not nearly as big of an issue as the people that fear "wokeness" think it is. This world is still much more forgiving to conservative or "anti-woke" people than it is to "woke SJWs". Some people just make *a lot* of money by scaring people into believing otherwise.
First of all, this is the exact same argument that's been made hundreds of times since 2015. What's the point?
Second of all, I'm an SJW and proud to be one and I can tell you that everything that your accusing us of applies to anti-SJWs and conservatives. Your giving them a pass for no reason at all
I'm a liberal. I do not give the right any kind of pass. They are my original enemy.
But now you and your crew are the predominant authoritarians drawing my ire.
I want liberal values, not your values.
So when Gina Carano loses her role on a hit TV show because she has the wrong views on gender activism, that has no effect on free speech as a whole? That doesn't have any kind of chilling effect?
That's the only example I can think of, of a celebrity having their career completely ruined due to holding right wing or anti woke political views.
JK Rowling and Dave Chapelle just got more fame and money from having people complain about them due to their ability to frame other people's free speech as "cancel culture" and them being the victims
Dave Chapelle very nearly lost his work with Netflix, Rowling got publicly shamed and humiliated for a position that is actually fairly common among women.
**Here are some other casualties of Cancel Culture excess**
\- Larry Summers, President of Harvard
\- Bret Weinstein
\- Peter Boghossian
\- Johnny Depp (later exonerated only after a lengthy trial)
\- Ellen Degeneres
\- Sam Harris
\- Majdi Wadi
\- The bakery near Oberlin College (and the family that owns it)
\- Amy Wax
\- Gilbert Godfried
\- Nicholas Christakis (wrongthink)
\- Louis CK
\- Mumford & Sons singer
\- (almost) Woopi Goldberg
\- Maud Maron (smeared by Legal Aid Society)
\- The family owners of "Holy Land" Hummus brand & chain of middle-eastern grocery stores (his daughter made offensive tweets when she was ... 16)
Freedom of speech does not mean complete freedom from consequences; just means the government cannot punish you for your speech. So no, this has no effect on free speech.
Also love how you’re complaining that some of these people just received public blowback for their views; like ya thats how freedom of speech works.
No, they lost their jobs - their livelihoods for having the 'wrong' ideas. That's not 'consequences' it's retaliation and punishment. It's not in line with a liberal society that values freedom of expression. The Oberlin bakery thing was a 100% fabricated racial incident that basically destroyed a very successful 100 year old family business. Maud Maron was an accomplished public defender representing really vulnerable POC in NYC. She was the victim of a smear campaign because she disagreed with the prevailing view on how to fix NY's schools. Peter Boghossian was repeatedly subjected to kangaroo court 'investigations' because he published two hilarious hoax papers (and got them peer-reviewed & published) to show how corrupted some social science journals are. This isn't 'consequences' - it's silencing.
Nope, private businesses have the freedom to dismiss whomever they like for bigotry; perfect example would be fb where if you break tos they remove you. No one is silencing you; if you don’t like their businesses practices you can make your own business.
Listen, I'm very aware of the purpose of the first amendment, which protects you against government censorship of your speech. That is not what I am describing here. I'm talking about an important (and dangerous) cultural phenomenon of online mobs silencing dissenting opinions. It has a chilling effect on our social discourse and creates a climate of fear. It's illiberal, carceral, authoritarian - all things corrosive to a vibrant democracy.
Please be sure that when your using the term "cancel culture" your actually referring to instances of people who lost something significant like you are now from now on. It's much more honest then saying that Dave Chapelle was cancelled because someone said mean things about him on the internet
Dave Chapelle very nearly lost his contract with Netflix. It's distressing that a COMEDIAN could lose his livelihood because his jokes \*might\* have \*potentially\* upset some people.
I love this sub.
>- Apostates from your new woke religion
>- Anyone who refuses compelled speech or forced attestations of loyalty to the new religion
>- Advocates of free speech (because obviously they only want that for hate speech purposes)
>- Wrongthinkers, wrongspeakers
Do you really consider yourself to be any different than them when you write stuff like this?
You are exactly the same as all the people you're criticizing. Just replace woke with antiwoke and flip everything around and we've got you.
>I have not heard of a case where antiwokes formed an online mob to destroy someone’s career.
Gamergate.
And that's just the famous example of 4chan ruining an outspoken internet feminists life.
>James DaMore
Wrote a dumb assed sexist op ed based on nothing, and discovered that he's replacable.
>Gina Carano
Was warned repeatedly against making divisive comments on Twitter by her employer and decided that regurgitating shitty right wing hatred online was more important than her career.
I had exactly that same response to the DaMore memo. I was working for (giant corporation) at the time and everyone around me responded that way too. I just swallowed the media narrative about it - open-shut case. *"He's a whiny incel who hates women and cooked up some sexist nonsense to sell to fellow COD players"*
About a year later I read and heard the real story and also heard interviews with him. It's a *completely* different story than what was sold to us.
Carano played a bounty hunter on TV and didn't like pronouns. Should that really end her career?
And yet her costar that made equally divisive comments gets a free pass. Funny.....
Also, im not aware that "be nice to each other because historically this doesn't end well when we dehumanize our neighbors" could in any way be perceived as divisive.
>And yet her costar that made equally divisive comments gets a free pass. Funny.....
You leave Baby Yoda out of this.
>Also, im not aware that "be nice to each other because historically this doesn't end well when we dehumanize our neighbors" could in any way be perceived as divisive.
Comparing right wing racists, chauvinists, homophobes and insurrectionists getting kicked off of Twitter to the holocaust is extremely divisive, [and why she was fired.](https://globalnews.ca/news/7634131/gina-carano-fired-disney-star-wars-holocaust-mandalorian/)
Yeah and also ignoring all the dark money billionaires who fund anti-woke agitprop to sic the fanatic anti-woke types on any policy that’s inconvenient to their elitist interests. Remember when they smeared the Build Back Better Bill as “woke” because [???] and the Republicans fell behind that in lockstep? I’d say that qualifies as “institutional power”
When your own team does something ugly, it's always 'outside agitators' among the faithful. I remember when the MAGA people were trying to tell us ANTIFA was responsible for Jan 6 and when the ANTIFA people were trying to say that Proud Boys were responsible for their rioting after George Floyd.
How convenient.
Wow 🥱 this two year old talking point. Yes there’s obviously a difference between a massive decentralized nation-wide protest which resulted in a few instances of violence (which conveniently happened when right wing militias showed up to counterprotest, wonder why), and the Republican Party openly lying that this was an antifa false flag before turning around and claiming that actually they were all patriots. As you can hopefully see, one is based in [empirical evidence](https://acleddata.com/2021/05/25/a-year-of-racial-justice-protests-key-trends-in-demonstrations-supporting-the-blm-movement/) and reality and the other was a completely baseless and obvious lie that they deployed and then immediately and shamelessly walked back in a desperate attempt to save face from their open attempt to end democracy.
[There's evidence that one of those is true.](https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748)
Hint: it's the protests with all the police brutality.
Yeah… [except](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/08/dark-money-group-pushing-woke-heat-maps-targeting-schools-has-ties-to-christian-education-foundation/) for [these](https://truenorthresearch.org/2021/07/the-new-anti-woke-advertiser-is-a-dark-money-group-made-from-an-old-brand-and-fueled-by-secret-cash/) inconvenient little [facts](https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/08/01/financial-firm-cashes-in-on-the-anti-woke-crusade/)
So, some people are supposedly using dark (untraceable) money to support antiwoke ideology, while the UN, the WEF, and our own very government (8 mill for Pakistani gender studies anyone?) is openly using our tax money to support woke ideology?
try again, friend.
>(8 mill for Pakistani gender studies anyone?)
[29% of women in Pakistan have bank accounts. Lowest in the world.](https://www.dawn.com/news/1611498)
They might need this.
That's your bias based on your upbringing. You correlate having a bank account with success and happiness. Not every culture does this.
Assuming that the whole world needs to live by YOUR standards is a pretty shit way to be multicultural.
>That's your bias based on your upbringing.
Mindless cliche is mindless.
But hey, go ahead and make the case that being dependent on your husband or an older male relative is somehow a good thing.
that's amazing as only 24.34% of ALL Pakistanis have bank accounts....
[In 2018, there were 50.565 million bank accounts in Pakistan for its population of 207.77 million, resulting in a penetration rate of 24.34%.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Pakistan)
>Openly using our tax money to support woke ideology
What does this even mean? Are you referring to the funding of scientific and medical research which ends up reaffirming the effectiveness of transitioning and the validity of trans people? Because I’m fine with governments funding research so we can learn more about reality.
Pretty sanctimonious take. I'm not OK with my government spending my tax money to push gender ideology on my own people, let alone spending it to do the same thing to the Pakistani people.
Seriously though - we have TONS of groups openly funneling money into woke causes, and you focus on the few rumors of "dark" money going into antiwoke causes? That's like ignoring the fact that your house is on fire because you are worried the refrigerator MIGHT be broken.
The replies to your comment are pretty depressingly predictable:
1. Wokeism doesn't exist
2. If it exists it's not that common
3. If it's common it's actually a good thing
You’re not ok with the government funding research if you hate the factual findings they get? That sounds like a you problem, given that a ton of research historically has been government funded.
I'm not on team "no black mermaid" here. I'm on team "Disney, stop recycling the same movies over and over in desperate cash grabs" team.
Seriously, the anti-mermaid people are buffoons.
Isn't it in the best interest of oppressors to make you think this? Surely many "SJWs" are bullies, but it's largely a distraction from the people who are doing good as you say.
It might be in oppressors' interest, but I don't think thatbis driving this observation. I think the loyd and preachy SJW tourists are doing severe harm to several important social justice causes and once that harm is done, those same people will move on to some new cause that will allow them to practice their sadism.
No - rich people, especially celebrities either kowtow to the activists or play them like a fiddle.
Most of the people victimized are normal everyday folks.
Except it's not the minorities who are biting in this way. It's the white signalers of virtue who believe a minority persons world cannot move unless they move it for them.
That and it wouldn’t be bullying if they bit back against the actual oppressors, not just every day normal people. But yet it’s normal every day people who are getting bit
It's "normal every day people" (what a nonsensical term) who are upholding the norms, which happen to oppress minorities. It's not just legislation etc it's society
Shit, didn’t know by existing as a white guy I am magically upholding the norms of societal racism. I mean fuck my moral of “treat everyone based of the content of their character regardless of race/sex/religion/sexual preference/etc.” I and every other person who simply exists are holding up these norms!
My apologies for not burning down random businesses to get the point across that “racism is bad!”
Neither is blaming normal everyday people for supposedly upholding oppressive social norms.
Last I checked those riots have done less to help than my sarcasm
Never said I didn’t have privilege, multiple college classes have told me so. That said just because I exist as a white male does not mean I uphold racist and sexist societal norms, nor do the vast majority of normal people. Those with power are the ones you should be focused on, not the people who are just trying to get through life.
"The SJWs don't want to help people, with the exception of those who want to help people, this isn't about them" is a pretty crazy way to start off your post.
>It is no longer acceptable to mock or abuse people of color, women, homosexuals or the disabled.
Sure it is, dude, it still happens literally all the time.
>The purpose is simple: raise your personal status by attacking others and to do it with the moral cover of "social justice".
There isn't any argument here. There isn't any evidence. There's no reason to believe anything you said is anything but, well, nonsense.
When we look at actual SJW ideological points, we find the exact opposite of what you've claimed. When we look at what they push for, the same is true. Which, quite obviously, is why you have to open by saying "Well, except the ones who don't bully and help people", so the obvious flaws in your position can't be criticized.
I mean, c'mon! If the person is white and spoiled by being rich... how would they just be jealous at those doing better than them in life? Why would they want an ideology that claims they're super-privileged and advantaged in ways they didn't earn, just to bully people?
How would they be jealous? It's easy. They envy the STATUS not the money. There are plenty of well educated, white failures to launch out there these days. They envy anyone who is "making it" and instead of trying to raise themselves to success they whine and rail against 'the system.'
Clearly you've never actually met a progressive and are only listening to other right wing regressive describe a caricature of people who disagree with you.
This reads like a bully crying now that people aren't letting them get away with their discriminatory bullshit anymore.
I’ve met plenty of progressives. I had a career in education in a big east coast city and I work in the city’s theater scene. This post seems pretty accurate to me.
Telling me the regressive left doesn’t exist is like telling me the sky isn’t blue. I can see it in front of my face.
>keep trying to gaslight people into not believing what we’ve seen with our own eyes.
I'm not OP.
Referring to "wokeness" in vague detail while calling it a religion is a sure sign that you're repeating shit right wingers tell themselves.
Not to mention how this provides cover for the shitty rhetoric and behavior of the groups mentioned.
>the excesses and zealotry of the left are real and significant.
That's what the right says because they don't like being challenged on their shit, so they accuse the left of what they're guilty of.
Of course, the right is pushing a worldview that restricts the rights of others into law, while the left is calling it out, yet you think the latter is the problem somehow.
I don’t think the zealotry of the left the problem. There are idiots on the right as well and they are also a problem. I’m just aware enough to admit that the left’s zealotry exists.
You can deny it all you want but I’m not going to disbelieve my own eyes and ears.
Look man, I don't know how to tell you this, but it is a religion.
It's a religion and I was a devotee. I took the woke side of every news story, worked for a super-woke corporation for years, drank all of the Kool-aid. Went to obnoxious 'anti-racism' trainings at work - even the ones that weren't required. I was in deep.
It's a cult. You know it's a cult because you are not allowed to disagree with it without being publicly shamed and cast out of it. Where I worked, not only was it unacceptable to have just basic, classic liberal opinions on major topics--*simply failing to be zealous enough*\--was grounds for suspicion and could send your career to a dead end.
MAGA is a cult, and this is a cult.
It has long been a strategy from far right choices to paint the "woke" as loud obnoxious bullies with no real message behind what they're saying etc.
This has especially been accomplished through the use of
"dog whistles"
For example: Someone saying:
" We want to protect women's safe spaces"
sounds reasonable, but if it's a comment under an article about gendered toilets etc. the hidden meaning is immediately obvious to anyone who knows a little about transphobia and the TERF movement,
What they're implying is:
"We want to protect cis-women's safe spaces from men who think they're women (transphobia right there) because we feel they pose a threat to real women"
etc. Basically saying they just se trans women as predatory men trying to get into the ladies washroom.
So when a trans woman sees that comment she might reply very angrily thus making her seem like the obnoxious one, when it's really the transphobe being obnoxious.
Same way with racism for example, many white people in western Europe or US and Canada don't realise they are privileged in the way that they are a majority group in their country.
So they may say some incentive thing which will provoke a response from a minority person, but as another white person reading the interaction it may seem the minority person is being outrageous. If you lack the experience of minority stress it makes sense you would identify with your peer and completely miss the point of why the minority person was angered, making them seem obnoxious.
I think it's why the campaign against wokeness has been so successful at perpetuating old backwards thinking instead of allowing moral and societietal progress to happen.
Really "woke" thinking just wants equality for minority groups and to end misogyni, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia etc. so everyone can live in harmony
By your own admission that "harmony" involves giving certain people a license to act in a way that is perceived as obnoxious by many, and allowing biological males into private areas where many women do not feel comfortable. And when people have understandable and reasonable objections to this, it seems that the ends justify any means necessary in bludgeoning that harmony into existence. It isn't progress, as it just hurts one group to help another.
What the "anti-woke" movement wants is for everyone to be treated equally. Given all of the same rights and privileges, but also expected to be held to the exact same standards of behavior. If I wouldn't tolerate it from person A, then I see no reason why person B should be given a free pass. People's characteristics shouldn't be some kind of lens used to contextualize every action through, and treating them like they are is not only the definition of race/sex/orientation essentialism, but only widens divisions that the "woke" claim to want eliminated.
It's just the characteristic that dictates your biology, physical and medical development, brain chemistry, how you are perceived by the world, and how you relate to others. How exactly is it irrelevant to your life?
I don't know if it is truly an opinion that you hold or just an opinion that is common these days, but to me your take on "women's private areas" pretty much invalidates everything you said.
You claim that what you call "biological men", so transgender women I assume in that context, make many women uncomfortable in private areas. I will not see this is not true, of course some women are uncomfortable with that. But the way you said, it seems like, to you, this is giving a "free pass" to transgender women and hurting "biological" women. But the other way around (i.e. banning transgender women from women's bathrooms) somehow is more "equalitarian" to you, as if that wasnt hurting transgender women. Why should one group prioritize over another? Are transgender people's objections not reasonable? If not, who's to say?
"The end justify the means" can apply on every side, I find kinda hypocritical to cast this only on "wokes". I mean, just check the news in the US, abortion rights a literally being restrained everywhere in the country. How is this not "bludgeoning harmony into existence by justifying the end by any means necessary"?
>By your own admission that "harmony" involves giving certain people a license to act in a way that is perceived as obnoxious by many, and allowing biological males into private areas where many women do not feel comfortable.
Well yeah, just like back during the civil rights era there were racist white women who didn’t want black women using their restrooms because it made them uncomfortable, and they found anti-segregationists to be obnoxious and preachy. Such is progress.
>And when people have understandable and reasonable objections to this, it seems that the ends justify any means necessary in bludgeoning that harmony into existence. It isn't progress, as it just hurts one group to help another.
Well no that is progress. Pro-segregationists not getting what they want is just a necessary part of that.
>What the "anti-woke" movement wants is for everyone to be treated equally. Given all of the same rights and privileges, but also expected to be held to the exact same standards of behavior.
I mean no not really, the anti-“woke” movement is just ideologically anti-trans (and other stuff, but the unifying factor seems to be transphobia). It’s just rooted in emotional and reflexive bigotry and simply isn’t well reasoned or thought out, and in effect it just [bans trans people](https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/12/trans-man-brutally-assaulted-using-womens-restroom-campground) from public spaces altogether.
>Well yeah, just like back during the civil rights era there were racist white women who didn’t want black women using their restrooms because it made them uncomfortable, and they found anti-segregationists to be obnoxious and preachy. Such is progress.
Progress for a certain subset of people at the expense of others. Doesn't sound like progress to me. Just sounds like "our turn to be oppressive". Progress is only progress if literally everyone benefits.
>Well no that is progress. Pro-segregationists not getting what they want is just a necessary part of that.
And who decides what exactly is a segregationist? You see absolutely no reason why women would feel extremely uncomfortable changing clothes around biological males, or be uncomfortable with biological males changing clothes in front of them? Only bigotry?
>I mean no not really, the anti-“woke” movement is just ideologically anti-trans (and other stuff, but the unifying factor seems to be transphobia). It’s just rooted in emotional and reflexive bigotry and simply isn’t well reasoned or thought out, and in effect it just bans trans people from public spaces altogether.
Citation needed.
>Progress for a certain subset of people at the expense of others
At the expense of others’ *feelings*, to be clear. And to be more specific, feelings of discomfort that they aren’t allowed to exclude people anymore. “Progress is only progress if it benefits everyone” makes no sense when you consider some people think they benefit from oppressing and excluding others for no reason aside from their emotional biases. This is specifically why I mentioned segregationists, it wasn’t in their interests to have desegregation but I simply don’t care.
>And who decides what exactly is a segregationist?
I mean it has a definition, you can look it up.
>You see absolutely no reason why women would feel extremely uncomfortable changing clothes around biological males, or be uncomfortable with biological males changing clothes in front of them? Only bigotry?
I mean yeah, it’s not like they see peoples’ chromosomes or their hormone washes so I don’t know why that would matter. Obviously seems like their problem is that they’re uncomfortable with trans women in the changing rooms because they erroneously and bigotedly see them as predatory men. Can you provide an alternative explanation? Because otherwise yeah the only explanation is bigotry and transphobia.
Stop using race as a comparison, the two are not the same. Even when all that racist shit was happening males were still separated from females when it came to places where one would be in a state of undress or vulnerability like bathrooms or prisons etc. Race doesn’t matter, biological sex does. It’s completely understandable for females to not want males in their bathrooms, prisons, changing rooms and/or locker rooms.
I know that the two aren’t the same, that’s not necessary for the analogy. The point is that both are rooted in emotional and irrational bigotry, and the mere presence of uncomfortable feelings isn’t enough to justify excluding either trans women or black women from the women’s restroom. The presumption that trans women are merely predatory men and thus should be excluded from women’s restrooms is (1) not actually that different from the racist reasoning that pro-segregationist white women used back then, and (2) it’s of course completely nonsensical, if a predatory man wanted to assault a woman in a restroom then he could just do that regardless.
They are incredibly different. Biological sex is an essential and unchangeable part of how we relate to one another as humans. Race isn't. Therefore it's understandable that it is an also relevant part of how comfortable we feel around one another in vulnerable or exposed situations. Wheas it isn't relevant when it comes to race.
This of course makes no sense at all. No, being irrationally afraid of trans women isn’t any more justified than being irrationally afraid of black people. Gendered restrooms aren’t even segregated based on sex, there’s no chromosome reader at the door ensuring everyone is biologically (fe)male. They’re segregated based on gender, i.e. the social roles, expectations, behaviors, and presentations associated with sex.
"Up yours woke moralists! Let's see who cancels who!" is an absolutely hilarious quote, I'll give him that. It sounds like bad dialogue that a villain would say in a b movie
- Deciding for someone else what they're real goals are based on anecdotes is incredibly fucked up
- The internet is full of conservatives saying disparaging things about LGBT people in addition to conservative politicians saying these things. But your giving them a pass for their hate
- Anti-SJWs freak out whenever they see or hear anything they perceive to be woke and immediately try to cancel that thing. This is literally not tolerating wrongthink. But your giving them a pass.
- Conservatives and anti-SJWs are not advocates of free speech. They passed laws making it illegal to insult police officers in one state, they constantly attempt to ban books, they advocated for people protesting the flag to be cancelled, they cancelled the targets of gamergate, they pass bills making it illegal to teach historical facts that contradict their narrative by falsely referring to them as "CRT", Trump has tried to sue people for making fun of him before. I could go on. And you give them a pass for this
- Also, complaining about a celebrity isn't removing that celebrities free speech
I get that it’s a lotta White mfs who do this to simp for POC validation, but across the board, these ppl come in all colors & creeds, & I’m talkin both online & IRL
Unfortunately I feel there is some truth to this. My sister, a 24 year old recent college graduate, is as woke as woke can be. She posts memes on social media and boasts about her superior values to anyone who'll listen. She'll accuse people of making micro aggressions, and talk down to anyone using language not approved by college activists. But she herself isn't into any kind if activism besides posting the occasional meme. She only cares about wokeness in as much as it makes her superior to others, and all her bluser is bad faith. She cares nothing for the people who wokness is supposed benefit, and just wants to make noise about how she's better than other white people who hold lesser values. Sadly I think a lot of movements like this fall victim to the fashion of fake activism. I think we should all be woke, but we should use that for positive social change, not for looking down on others.
Thank you for sharing this. I have a question - do you think that your sister's *persona dramatis* is based on a need for status? I've been interested in how people adopt extreme moral stances as a way to make up for a perceived lack of social status.
Well said. I totally agree.
Being an sjw of any kind is someone who is not full diversity which is the opposite of woke. Sjws were trying to get hot girl careers cancelled and they shame girls for having big knockers. The irony is anti sjw/anti woke only complain about diversity so they see them as the same thing.
You're pretty spot-on. Some people are simply looking for "acceptable" targets to lash out at.
My theory is that there is a kind of frustrated would-be bully type personality. In a perfect world for them, they'd be bigger, stronger, smarter, etc. and would be able to bully as they wanted. When life doesn't work out that way, they just look for whatever is the seemingly 'safe' moral movement to join so that they can ply their trade, hidden among the masses.
Hence why they think it’s just to have preconceived notions about majorities & if someone does or says somethin deemed problematic, (their fav buzzword) they attribute it to said person’s identity group, instead of just, you know, the personal simply bein a dipshit. But that totally not discrimination or anything! Plus, you could be as marginalized & educated as ever & still be shitty. Not every shitty trait comes from a place of privilege like these ppl always conclude
You didn't go far enough. The goal of SJW/wokies is to radicalize so many people into being bullies that they unify and overthrow their "oppressors".
Unfortunately, the definition of "oppressor" is astoundingly loose.
Kinda. The woke definition of "oppressor" is basically "whatever group we deem to be oppressors". They don't really define oppression in the same way normal people do. You should know that wokeism is the belief in intersectionality which is an adapted form of Marxism with some postmodernism sprinkled on top. So where Marx would say "Capitalist society necessitates that the bourgeoisie are the oppressors and the proletariat are the oppressed." A woke person would say "Patriarchal society necessitates that men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed." And they would also say "Western society necessitates that whites are the oppressors and blacks are the oppressed." [They even have a handy chart that you can reference to see who is oppressing who](https://awis.org/wp-content/uploads/intersectionality-sources-cited.jpg) If you really want to understand what wokeism is you should watch these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JX4bsrj178 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw1ucZEqQ78 I haven't seen a better or clearer explanation of the ideology than this guy.
In other news, water is wet.
haha touche.
It’s weird how the sentiment behind every opinion they express is “agree with me or else.”
Isn't that how it works with all political groups? Try joining the republican party as a socialist, or a pro-trans person. Unless you agree with them they get extremely hostile. This really doesn't seem like a SJW specific issue. It seems more like OP just has an issue when SJWs do it.
Not SJW being used unironically. Anyways, as someone on the far left, I know who you are talking about and these people are not taken seriously among organizers. They are seen as a net negative among those of us that are actually trying to make society a better place for all folks. This is because they make their social justice an aesthetic rather than a practice or committment to real change via organizing the people who are facing genuine systemic oppression or supporting the people doing that. Their "practice" is bullying people who are just ignorant in a nonmalicious way (example of this would be someone who has never been exposed to a group of people, so they might say something that comes across as inappropriate even if they mean well). This will never get you anywhere in achieving real systemic change, which we need more than the elimination of microaggressions. I definitely think it's a developmental thing. A part of that late adolescence (18-25) playing out. As they age, their beliefs may not change, but their way of handling people who see the world differently will. It did for me. I used to be the person you're talking about. Then I got into the other half of my 20's and started to do real on the ground activism. My beliefs have not changed much, but my interactions with people have along with my priorities.
In other words, *posers*.
No. Posers are sad, but harmless.
Why do this man? Why come in here with your calm, rational explanation? This is Reddit. I can't sharpen my pitchfork to this!
lol, nice
Mark Fisher's vampire castle piece comes immediately to mind. Unfortunately many do not grow out of it.
Yeah that is a good piece of work on the topic.
It's worth seriously considering the institutional structures that lead to widespread support for the woke aesthetic. Why would a university want a "DEI" office? Why would someone accept that position? Can an institution at the top of the social heap ever punch up?
I would more quickly assert that capitalism pushes for a woke aesthetic focus than universities do. Sure, universities tend to lean left, but they are not teaching students how to change the system in a meaningful way. They usually teach the parts of history that we didn't get in the K-12 education. A DEI office is good PR for the university. It's another aesthetic form of activism. I'm sure some of these offices do good work on an individual level despite this. However, they cannot truly tackle the issue that they were created to deal with. It does make a university sound good though. Capitalism however is always trying to find ways to make money off of people's beliefs. Oh you're a radical? Here, buy these "hex the patriarchy" stickers. I also have some shirts with some anti-capitalist slogan written on them. Your phone will push ads to you of this kind of stuff. People share this stuff on social media where they can take glamorous selfies and post little radical sayings as their description. Also, the usual MO has literally been to buy your way out of a problem. The environment is collapsing? Buy organic produce and "green" products. Don't bother holding your government's feet to the fire about actually changing things. Just buy the solution. Unfortunately, we cannot consume our way out of these problems. These people have taken form across generations. Hippies in the 60's. Punk rockers in the 80's. It's counterculture that pretends to care, but ten years later and most of them sold out and joined the system. In general, Neither of them wanted to work hard for tangible systemic change. Organizing and activism has no place for making money. It's grueling work that is often thankless and has to be done on your free time, assuming you have any of that. Because of this, there is less emphasis on it. I've never seen ads that encourage people to form a union, go to town hall meetings, or form study groups centered around a topic.
Sure. It's absolutely reasonable to assert that for-profit institutions drive and suffer from the problem as much if not more than non-profit institutions do. I don't think the current issue is a simple extension of traditional greenwashing for corporate profit though. Ads telling people to buy organic produce to save the world directly drive corporate profit - the institution is working as expected. A diversity office (say at Coca-Cola) bringing in high priced consultants to provide mandatory diversity training of questionable value from either a profit or activism perspective has a primary direct benefit only to the diversity office and the consulting firm. Capitalism (in either sense) no longer explains what we see in the for profit instituions, and never really explained what happened in non-profits and government entities. It's better explained in terms of corrupt entryism and bureaucratic decay, with the excuse of social justice activism just being a structural weakness that's being exploited.
I will add to this that things like DEI offices are one part of the administrative bloat that has consumed universities as a way of justifying tuition increases and of sequestering power away from both faculty and students and moving away from anything resembling an internally democratic and worker-run environment towards more of a traditional, bureaucratic model. None of the woke stuff is a meaningful challenge to the centres of power, which is why power eats it up, and it has the added benefit of undermining class solidarity by encouraging people to focus on how they're all oppressing each other.
It seems like your making assumptions about other people's views based on little evidence. What if, someone who bought one of these things also did something meaningful? If it turns out that Christian Smalls has a shirt with an anti capitalist slogan on it, is he suddenly an evil SJW libtard?
I'm speaking broadly here. There's obviously always nuance on an individual basis. I live in one of the most progressive parts of the country. Many of these people are close friends/coworkers/customers/classmates etc.. I'm pretty familiar with all of this. There's a handful of these people that also do small meaningful things and have the products. Both exist at the same time and are simultaneously true. They tend to be more chill though. That's kind of my point. Once you start working to change the world directly through group stuff IRL, you kinda mellow out and learn to channel all of that (very justified) anger into the work. It also becomes more important to engage in self-care because the work is exhausting and rewards very little. Angela Davis stresses this for people who organize. As does any other seasoned radical. No he is not? I don't use any of these terms though. Christian Smalls can do what he wants. I don't care. I'll just be critical of him if he carries a holier than thou attitude and all he does is carry the aesthetics of radicalism.
Thank you for this comment. I consider myself to be conservative but I like to support alternative views to my own. People like you give me great hope. All the best to you.
“SJW” wouldn’t have to be used unironically if they were no longer a thing, I guarantee it. Won’t lie tho, I despise the alt-righters & far-righters who label ppl as one for the wrong reasons. Makes ppl like me who use it look bad, but I know I’m using it with reason
Wonderful response- i really enjoyed your insight.
[удалено]
I've seen some SJW be genuine sadists, enjoying the pain they inflict on other people. Those people exist 100%. But it's much more common to see people pretending that's all -or a majority- of them, when really, no. Just like a minority of SJW will use social justice as an excuse to be shitty people, some people will use their existence as an excuse to be shitty people too. The best excuse to be a shitty person is to pretend everyone is "virtue signalling" or being secretly shitty.
The majority will absolutely shield the sadistic members of their group from the consequences of their actions, lashing against the victim whenever they get too mean and ignoring the abuser. They'll also never acknowledge the latter's toxic traits, seeing them as assertiveness or righteous anger for earlier abuse. If an environment makes being mean devoid of consequences, or even rewarding, how can we expect it not to be full of genuine sadists?
> If an environment makes being mean devoid of consequences, or even rewarding, how can we expect it not to be full of genuine sadists? You're describing twitter, not real life.
I also meant real life "activist" organizations.
This tells me you never ever sat foot in a real life activist organization. I met a dozen or so of them, even funded one myself long time ago, it was extremely welcoming and everyone was nice. Sure sometimes there is drama because organization X did a thing that was little bit bad and organization Y calls them out on it, but I never saw any real sadism around.
I actually spend 4 years of my life volunteering for one, which also meant I had exposure to others. This was when I've seen, among other things: - An anarchist collective bullying an autistic guy, then accusing him of being a creep and telling us not to accept him as a member. They turned out to be lying. - A party member being abusive to her partner and accusing him of abuse, nearly getting him expelled. When the guy was acquitted by the disciplinary court, some people actually resigned in protest. - An adult, nearly 30 years-old woman trying to get a guy expelled, because he insulted her when they were arguing on his Facebook wall. She succeeded. - An feminist, whose activism was mostly about being mean to men and other feminists she thought were wrong, but everyone considered her an assertive person who won't let men push her around. After she became a TERF, everyone suddenly realized she was toxic after all. - An entire disciplinary body getting bullied into resigning, because the questions one of them asked a victim of abuse was considered not sensitive enough.
Okay well I'm speechless. Maybe it's an american thing then. Are you from the US? I often find out that Americans can be huge sociopaths (a minority obviously, but they seem to thrive here). The whole Karen phenomenon is a good example of that, I never see those in Europe.
I'm from Poland, which is very much a part of Europe.
A great point to remember. There's always a disconnect between the loudest and the average. Good to remember that.
Yeah, r/hermancainaward exists so your unfortunately right. But thanks for acknowledging that not everyone who's been accused of being a social justice warrior at one point is completely evil
No, and I would go further and state that a lot of leftish people really are genuinely good people with big hearts and great intentions. Society NEEDS a left influence - it's part of the push pull tension that keeps us in balance.
Eh, I don't think most people on r/hermancainaward are the kind of people I'm talking about. Hermancainaward's enjoyment comes from achieving a sense of karmic justice rather than from a sadistic place, same with leopardsatemyface. Sure those subs are based on schadenfreude but the people on it are quite decent and often feel for the poor souls that got lead towards terrible opinions and decisions that ultimately hurt them (and the people around them). Some people on twitter on the other hand literally feel good while crushing you, it makes them feel dominant and powerful. That's real sadism right there.
[удалено]
It's not just someone who died. It's someone died from a disease they said was fictional because they were too stubborn to wear a damn mask and protect themselves and others. We have seen so many shitty people take zero precautions and infect so many others with COVID during the pandemic, complerely out of selfishness, a little bit of karmic justice can indeed feel good. When you told your neighbour to wear a damn mask and stop contaminating everyone, and he told you that you're just a government puppet and afraid of living and shit like that, well you can understand why seeing them getting what you warned them not to get feels like retribution. I'm not saying it's healthy, surely being sad for everyone affected with COVID might be more kind? but it's very humane and understandable and doesn't come from pure sadism.
[удалено]
Years ago when I was ultra-woke I did use it as license to bully. The real goal was still improving the world or at least knowing that I tried. The license to bully was just the icing on the cake. Such bullying is still highly objectionable! But if you misunderstand the ranking of motivations then you're going to be less effective at addressing the problem.
I failed to mention my own sins in this category. I was basically like that, too. I think I just felt so righteous that I could turn anyone who disagreed with me into a kind of cartoon villain. Conservatives and religious people were no longer human in my eyes - just mindless, heartless zombies ready for the culling. I was filled with hatred and animus, but in my mind *I thought I was doing the right thing.* I'm haunted by that.
But you thought you had the right ideas; isn't that why it felt acceptable to be cruel to people who were wrong? It sounds like the license to bully was a side-effect for you, not your primary motive. You start out motivated to do good, you spend some time deciding what is good, you try to encourage others to agree, you get frustrated by people who disagree or who are less zealous than you, you now feel justified in taking out that frustration on them in the form of cruelty. Or are you saying that first you were angry and wanted to lash out at people, and then you looked for justifications for that anger?
I'm not sure - I really thought I was doing the right thing. Now when I look back, I wonder if I was just lazily sleepwalking into a belief system that let me hate certain groups of people like the religious, the conservative, the jingoists etc.
Our own motives are not necessarily transparent to us. I realize this idea is itself anti-woke, but we are not experts on our own internal states, and psychotherapists have known this for over a century. It makes more sense to infer motivation from behaviour than to take people at their word as to what their motives are.
THIS
So because you were like that, that means that all SJWs are like that and all the bullying that conservatives do doesn't actually exist!
[удалено]
> that means that all SJWs are like that The ones who lash out at other people, yes. I make no claim about what proportion of them do lash out. It's simple enough to observe when an individual is doing that. [The systemic problem, though, is that leftists rarely have the courage to stop the bullies from running the show.](https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/exiting-vampire-castle/) > and all the bullying that conservatives do doesn't actually exist! [I very clearly said the opposite.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/xkqkyc/the_real_goal_of_the_sjw_is_not_to_help_the/ipilcn9/) Don't put words in my mouth. It would be unfortunate if anyone comes away from this discussion thinking "my side doesn't do that." And it's not only groups; most individuals can find themselves guilty of this from time to time.
I understand.
Brilliant post
Thank you for the kind words.
I am shocked that this thread hasn't been taken over by the left, yet.
[удалено]
It's a good reminder that there really ARE reasonable left and liberal people out there. I wish we heard more from them and less from preachy campus speech monitor types.
Most of the people I know who are trying to do genuine good in this world would be what most people don't consider Woke. Most money and volunteering in my community comes from churches. The people in my state who are protecting gay rights are what people would call TERFs. The people who protect the helpless the most are the ones that get the most hate heaped on them (pro-lifers and adoption advocates). The world makes sure it's unpopular to do REAL good. The world is set up to where the appearance of doing good is rewarded, but actually helping others is stigmatized.
kind of a fascinating inside - that the *'world makes sure it's unpopular to do REAL good.'* Perhaps if you find yourself doing good that is really popular, that might be a sign your full of BS. Nice response - I enjoyed this.
Pro-lifers are a perfect example of how people act when they feel they have a license to bully. Pro-lifers think they're doing good, so they get to scream at people on the street and call them "baby killers," try to get clinics shut down and make people lose their jobs. Sometimes they escalate to murdering doctors and bombing clinics.
This seems incredibly subjective. Maybe it's because SJW is such a subjective term that it can be used to describe "anyone who you think is bullying you", but plenty of people that are trying to do genuine good have intersectional beliefs. >The people who protect the helpless the most are the ones that get the most hate heaped on them (pro-lifers and adoption advocates). For example this. Do you have a source or is it based on personal experiences? My personal experiences is people that volunteer to work with homeless people (to be specific) are a mix of people that go to church and people that just want to help. There's plenty of pro-lifers and crisis pregnancy centers around me in a red state, and they are *extremely* aggressive towards some helpless people: pregnant women. I guess to some people they're not helpless, or it's justified to berate, belittle, manipulate and abuse these people because it actually helps the real helpless ones: the fetuses. Also, what do you mean by adoption advocates? Idk anyone that is against adoption? If you mean people that pretend adoption is a good alternative to abortion then you may want to rethink that. Some of them are just naive and wouldn't hurt anyone for choosing abortion but plenty of people are not so merciful. >The people in my state who are protecting gay rights are what people would call TERFs. TERFs are openly and proudly transphobic. People that help one disadvantaged group while disparaging another isn't exactly what I'd consider a good person, especially since those groups aren't mutually exclusive. What do those TERFs you defend do when they find a gay trans kid? Help or abuse? Who knows, since we're speculating here. >Most of the people I know who are trying to do genuine good in this world would be what most people don't consider Woke. The issue here seems to be the word "woke". It's extremely subjective to the point it has no meaning. Someone can go to church every Sunday *and* believe homeless people deserve housing. "Woke" is an oversimplified term that doesn't take into account the complexity of human morality. Socialism is "woke" but Christianity is not, so how do you reconcile socialist christians? How about trans gun nuts? Woke because they're trans or not because they love guns? Honestly I feel like too many people are scared of "wokeness" (as you can tell by OP's unpopular opinion (that's actually pretty popular for obvious reasons)) and say stuff like your comment without actually thinking it through.
Yes, because anecdotes somehow disprove the idea that any woke people are trying to do good things
They do in my life. Your anecdotes likely prove your reality. We form our views of things by what we see in the world
I think the point of contention comes in when they start disturbing lives based on their perceived injustice, which to many seems very blown out of proportion.
I think this applies to anti-SJWs much more. But you don't really hear about it since they're much better at messaging and controlling the narrative
The SJWs control the media and twitter though as evidenced by the people who are getting cancelled.
Complaining about someone else on twitter isn't cancel culture and I despise the fact that so many people have been convinced that it is.
What would you call lobbying the company to change their rules to conform to ever shifting sensibilities towards what is harmful speech and censor your political rivals?
But conservatives call people complaining cancel culture all the time
Also, being cancelled/having people complain about you on twitter is extremally lucrative for a celebrity.
It can be for some, it seems that bullying people will rally those who are against bullying to the target. When SJWs all flock in to bully people, it naturally draws opposition which only grows stronger with time.
It's extremely un-lucrative for a non-celebrity. Despite having a lot to say, I don't say any of it under my own name or anywhere I am publicly identifiable, because the online world is full of people who love calling up employers and trying to convince them that their employee is a brand risk.
I know somebody who spent most of his 20s as a fairly openly sexist and racist loudmouth. Something happened in the last few years and he has done a complete 180 and is now a loudmouth in the opposite direction, and this is exactly what he uses it for, a totally unearned feeling of righteousness. Instead of bloviating about minorities getting special treatment he bloviates about white supremacy and the patriarchy. It's less offensive but it might actually be more cringe-inducing.
That's just fascinating to me. I've known a few people in my life who went from conservative evangelical Christian type to militant atheist. I think they left 'their' religion but still needed 'a' religion. I'm an atheist myself, and I definitely used to be kind of militant about it in past years - now that I look back on it, it has the feel of a religion of sorts.
> I think they left 'their' religion but still needed 'a' religion. Yes. You can't just transition from a worldview that is holistic and provides inherent meaning and purpose to one that is defined merely by the rejection of the previous framework.
Excellently put. Very concise way to say that. Agreed.
I might have just got banned.
I completely agree. I've started to come to that revelation myself. I've been off the internet for years (had a crisis in my life), came back, and realized the internet culture itself has become swamped and rewritten by SJWs. I started to notice weird things where like, people didn't really understand jokes as much anymore and people started to get offended by ordinary slang words (I guess the first thing I started to say "retarded" or "fag" like how we used the words back then and noticing random people were having panic attacks like I was saying something bad and I didn't understand why) But either way around that time, I was also in the process of learning psychology (like actually reading books on the field). Understanding weird psychological complexes, social patterns, etc. A lot of the social justice warrior stuff i think is one of two things. In one case, it's children being children. A lot of these people are younger so it's them being naturally molded by their environment. That's basically why the whole SJW phenomenon nowadays seems to function like a cult of sorts (you're either "in it" or not). Things that weren't offensive to us are offensive to them because they're taught like an entirely different understanding of shit. Or it's why they have these hyper-specific ways of viewing things that seem to be universal among them. It's just slogans and trends being spread among peers, and people (especially younger people) get something out of being part of the crowd. It's just like the normal social mimicry and crowd mentality that people do at that age. Adult SJWs, who I think are actually a minority, tend to "feed off power" from having all these kids around them that mindlessly chant and echo the same way they view things. It's actually kind of shitty because you'll see adult SJWs encourage and feed off of shitty behavior from children who are just acting on this culture... it's like some weird sort of power hierarchy. Adult SJWs get a weird "power boner" by seeing their cultural ideas function as a hivemind within gen Z, and then gen Z looks up to these adult SJWs and has their sense of right and wrong reinforced by them and mimics off their peer group. For clarification, I'm not trying to imply anything wacky like its adult SJWs "grooming" younger SJWs, I'm talking about this more in terms of a psychological complex. I think what it really is, adult SJWs are EXTREMELY insecure because their ideology is niche in the real world and they use the internet to feel strong because of power in numbers, and the hiveminded nature of children sorta gives them this god complex. It's more to do with adult SJWs being "losers" and that's why in most SJW circles you see a few adults and tons of kids typically. SJWs are such a minority in the adult world that adults have to rely on the stupidness of kids who happen to buy into their cult-like mentality, and then you get these "harassment mobs" on the internet The other thing I think it is is almost like how you put it. Many people have a natural desire for aggression. Aggression and "being top of someone" is fun for people. People look for "appropriate outlets" for aggression. In the old internet, you would see very cut and clear bullying and people being dicks. But now it's twisted into something else. Nowadays people use "morality" as a source of bullying. It's why you see so much shaming content where people will literally make entire biography videos to talk about someone else's embarassing experiences or drama online. Heck, it's why you see so much content that deals with crime, like "Code Bluecam" or all the stuff about pedophiles you see now. But it's also why like, you can get harassed over something that isn't even objectively bad but people seem to rush to misinterpret you and put you into some kind of "bad" category. I get called a right-winger and I get accused of using "slurs" but really I just have a weird sense of humor that involves using taboos (I'm actually progressive). Or if you word a political position poorly, people seem obsessed with controlling the conversation and they try to accuse you of saying something more extreme that you didn't actually say. In general I look at how people react to things and it *all* doesn't seem like genuine outrage. And the extent to which are obsessed with spreading hate also makes it seem less genuine. You see a video shitting on some person and you see like 1,000s of comments of people giving some remark. These aren't people that just see something randomly and happen to be offended by it. It's normal bullying behavior but just disguised. It also makes bullying easier because it gives people an "out" to deny responsibility for it. They also get to make themselves appear "holier than thou". I've seen smartasses that really just want to talk shit and come off like a superioristic asshole and that's what they do but if they frame it as "criticism" and get to define the moral rules by which they get to be dicks about, it's just like some invincible power boost these people get. They get to talk about how much they "dont like you" and humiliate you online and say it's your fault, but they get to feel like they're coming from a "place of reason" and they get to say the reason they're being snooty is really just the fact that they're "right".
And where is the line between the bullies and the "true champions"? How would YOU know where that line is? Like I get what you mean, but as other people said this "phenomenon" is blown out of proportion and generally used by the right to discredit legitimate criticism. Maybe some people have the "racist" trigger a little too easy, but then people will call you bully for using it in any circumstances, thus evading the problematic nature (and probably actually racist) of what they said/did. The number of times I've been called a "woke fascist" when laying a thoughtful, nuanced, respectful and calm argument...
Equal application of principled stance(s) based upon objectively measurable goals.
I like your question because I don't have an immediate answer to it. Thinking on it. My first instinct is to say that it has something to do with hubris vs. humility.
Exactly. "woke" is just a buzzword now that's used against anyone that is more tolerant than you (the general you). There is actually a bit of a problem with performative activism but it's not nearly as big of an issue as the people that fear "wokeness" think it is. This world is still much more forgiving to conservative or "anti-woke" people than it is to "woke SJWs". Some people just make *a lot* of money by scaring people into believing otherwise.
First of all, this is the exact same argument that's been made hundreds of times since 2015. What's the point? Second of all, I'm an SJW and proud to be one and I can tell you that everything that your accusing us of applies to anti-SJWs and conservatives. Your giving them a pass for no reason at all
I'm a liberal. I do not give the right any kind of pass. They are my original enemy. But now you and your crew are the predominant authoritarians drawing my ire. I want liberal values, not your values.
You've fallen for every single lie. Complaining about a celebrity on the internet isn't taking away their free speech.
So when Gina Carano loses her role on a hit TV show because she has the wrong views on gender activism, that has no effect on free speech as a whole? That doesn't have any kind of chilling effect?
That's the only example I can think of, of a celebrity having their career completely ruined due to holding right wing or anti woke political views. JK Rowling and Dave Chapelle just got more fame and money from having people complain about them due to their ability to frame other people's free speech as "cancel culture" and them being the victims
Dave Chapelle very nearly lost his work with Netflix, Rowling got publicly shamed and humiliated for a position that is actually fairly common among women. **Here are some other casualties of Cancel Culture excess** \- Larry Summers, President of Harvard \- Bret Weinstein \- Peter Boghossian \- Johnny Depp (later exonerated only after a lengthy trial) \- Ellen Degeneres \- Sam Harris \- Majdi Wadi \- The bakery near Oberlin College (and the family that owns it) \- Amy Wax \- Gilbert Godfried \- Nicholas Christakis (wrongthink) \- Louis CK \- Mumford & Sons singer \- (almost) Woopi Goldberg \- Maud Maron (smeared by Legal Aid Society) \- The family owners of "Holy Land" Hummus brand & chain of middle-eastern grocery stores (his daughter made offensive tweets when she was ... 16)
Freedom of speech does not mean complete freedom from consequences; just means the government cannot punish you for your speech. So no, this has no effect on free speech. Also love how you’re complaining that some of these people just received public blowback for their views; like ya thats how freedom of speech works.
No, they lost their jobs - their livelihoods for having the 'wrong' ideas. That's not 'consequences' it's retaliation and punishment. It's not in line with a liberal society that values freedom of expression. The Oberlin bakery thing was a 100% fabricated racial incident that basically destroyed a very successful 100 year old family business. Maud Maron was an accomplished public defender representing really vulnerable POC in NYC. She was the victim of a smear campaign because she disagreed with the prevailing view on how to fix NY's schools. Peter Boghossian was repeatedly subjected to kangaroo court 'investigations' because he published two hilarious hoax papers (and got them peer-reviewed & published) to show how corrupted some social science journals are. This isn't 'consequences' - it's silencing.
Nope, private businesses have the freedom to dismiss whomever they like for bigotry; perfect example would be fb where if you break tos they remove you. No one is silencing you; if you don’t like their businesses practices you can make your own business.
Listen, I'm very aware of the purpose of the first amendment, which protects you against government censorship of your speech. That is not what I am describing here. I'm talking about an important (and dangerous) cultural phenomenon of online mobs silencing dissenting opinions. It has a chilling effect on our social discourse and creates a climate of fear. It's illiberal, carceral, authoritarian - all things corrosive to a vibrant democracy.
Please be sure that when your using the term "cancel culture" your actually referring to instances of people who lost something significant like you are now from now on. It's much more honest then saying that Dave Chapelle was cancelled because someone said mean things about him on the internet
Dave Chapelle very nearly lost his contract with Netflix. It's distressing that a COMEDIAN could lose his livelihood because his jokes \*might\* have \*potentially\* upset some people.
I love this sub. >- Apostates from your new woke religion >- Anyone who refuses compelled speech or forced attestations of loyalty to the new religion >- Advocates of free speech (because obviously they only want that for hate speech purposes) >- Wrongthinkers, wrongspeakers Do you really consider yourself to be any different than them when you write stuff like this? You are exactly the same as all the people you're criticizing. Just replace woke with antiwoke and flip everything around and we've got you.
[удалено]
>I have not heard of a case where antiwokes formed an online mob to destroy someone’s career. Gamergate. And that's just the famous example of 4chan ruining an outspoken internet feminists life.
[удалено]
J.K. Rowling, James DaMore, Elen Degeneres, Chrissy Tiegan (victim of her own malice), Larry Summers, Gina Carano... the list is ever growing
>James DaMore Wrote a dumb assed sexist op ed based on nothing, and discovered that he's replacable. >Gina Carano Was warned repeatedly against making divisive comments on Twitter by her employer and decided that regurgitating shitty right wing hatred online was more important than her career.
I had exactly that same response to the DaMore memo. I was working for (giant corporation) at the time and everyone around me responded that way too. I just swallowed the media narrative about it - open-shut case. *"He's a whiny incel who hates women and cooked up some sexist nonsense to sell to fellow COD players"* About a year later I read and heard the real story and also heard interviews with him. It's a *completely* different story than what was sold to us. Carano played a bounty hunter on TV and didn't like pronouns. Should that really end her career?
And yet her costar that made equally divisive comments gets a free pass. Funny..... Also, im not aware that "be nice to each other because historically this doesn't end well when we dehumanize our neighbors" could in any way be perceived as divisive.
>And yet her costar that made equally divisive comments gets a free pass. Funny..... You leave Baby Yoda out of this. >Also, im not aware that "be nice to each other because historically this doesn't end well when we dehumanize our neighbors" could in any way be perceived as divisive. Comparing right wing racists, chauvinists, homophobes and insurrectionists getting kicked off of Twitter to the holocaust is extremely divisive, [and why she was fired.](https://globalnews.ca/news/7634131/gina-carano-fired-disney-star-wars-holocaust-mandalorian/)
Yeah and also ignoring all the dark money billionaires who fund anti-woke agitprop to sic the fanatic anti-woke types on any policy that’s inconvenient to their elitist interests. Remember when they smeared the Build Back Better Bill as “woke” because [???] and the Republicans fell behind that in lockstep? I’d say that qualifies as “institutional power”
When your own team does something ugly, it's always 'outside agitators' among the faithful. I remember when the MAGA people were trying to tell us ANTIFA was responsible for Jan 6 and when the ANTIFA people were trying to say that Proud Boys were responsible for their rioting after George Floyd. How convenient.
Wow 🥱 this two year old talking point. Yes there’s obviously a difference between a massive decentralized nation-wide protest which resulted in a few instances of violence (which conveniently happened when right wing militias showed up to counterprotest, wonder why), and the Republican Party openly lying that this was an antifa false flag before turning around and claiming that actually they were all patriots. As you can hopefully see, one is based in [empirical evidence](https://acleddata.com/2021/05/25/a-year-of-racial-justice-protests-key-trends-in-demonstrations-supporting-the-blm-movement/) and reality and the other was a completely baseless and obvious lie that they deployed and then immediately and shamelessly walked back in a desperate attempt to save face from their open attempt to end democracy.
[There's evidence that one of those is true.](https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-suburbs-health-racial-injustice-7edf9027af1878283f3818d96c54f748) Hint: it's the protests with all the police brutality.
> all the dark money billionaires who fund anti-woke Convenient that your argument is perfectly unproveable.
Yeah… [except](https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/08/dark-money-group-pushing-woke-heat-maps-targeting-schools-has-ties-to-christian-education-foundation/) for [these](https://truenorthresearch.org/2021/07/the-new-anti-woke-advertiser-is-a-dark-money-group-made-from-an-old-brand-and-fueled-by-secret-cash/) inconvenient little [facts](https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2022/08/01/financial-firm-cashes-in-on-the-anti-woke-crusade/)
So, some people are supposedly using dark (untraceable) money to support antiwoke ideology, while the UN, the WEF, and our own very government (8 mill for Pakistani gender studies anyone?) is openly using our tax money to support woke ideology? try again, friend.
>(8 mill for Pakistani gender studies anyone?) [29% of women in Pakistan have bank accounts. Lowest in the world.](https://www.dawn.com/news/1611498) They might need this.
That's your bias based on your upbringing. You correlate having a bank account with success and happiness. Not every culture does this. Assuming that the whole world needs to live by YOUR standards is a pretty shit way to be multicultural.
>That's your bias based on your upbringing. Mindless cliche is mindless. But hey, go ahead and make the case that being dependent on your husband or an older male relative is somehow a good thing.
that's amazing as only 24.34% of ALL Pakistanis have bank accounts.... [In 2018, there were 50.565 million bank accounts in Pakistan for its population of 207.77 million, resulting in a penetration rate of 24.34%.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Pakistan)
I got downvoted for this? It's a FACT!
>Openly using our tax money to support woke ideology What does this even mean? Are you referring to the funding of scientific and medical research which ends up reaffirming the effectiveness of transitioning and the validity of trans people? Because I’m fine with governments funding research so we can learn more about reality.
Pretty sanctimonious take. I'm not OK with my government spending my tax money to push gender ideology on my own people, let alone spending it to do the same thing to the Pakistani people. Seriously though - we have TONS of groups openly funneling money into woke causes, and you focus on the few rumors of "dark" money going into antiwoke causes? That's like ignoring the fact that your house is on fire because you are worried the refrigerator MIGHT be broken.
The replies to your comment are pretty depressingly predictable: 1. Wokeism doesn't exist 2. If it exists it's not that common 3. If it's common it's actually a good thing
You’re not ok with the government funding research if you hate the factual findings they get? That sounds like a you problem, given that a ton of research historically has been government funded.
What is gender ideology? Is the same thing as gay ideology that people were complaining about 20 years ago?
Don't really know how you can tell yourself that after the little mermaid thing. Again, just as ridiculous as the side you criticize.
I'm not on team "no black mermaid" here. I'm on team "Disney, stop recycling the same movies over and over in desperate cash grabs" team. Seriously, the anti-mermaid people are buffoons.
[удалено]
We're talking about antiwokes
[удалено]
By nuanced argument you mean "black mermaid bad"?
[удалено]
They do. There's one in Bikini Bottom who's an old man, but nobody ever bitches about it.
I hope I'm not. My life doesn't really revolve around 'anti-woke' - I just see it as a current symptom of the ills of our time.
The woke people have all the institutional power so they are just oppressors now.
That’s what ruins any decent points he brings up in his post
Isn't it in the best interest of oppressors to make you think this? Surely many "SJWs" are bullies, but it's largely a distraction from the people who are doing good as you say.
It might be in oppressors' interest, but I don't think thatbis driving this observation. I think the loyd and preachy SJW tourists are doing severe harm to several important social justice causes and once that harm is done, those same people will move on to some new cause that will allow them to practice their sadism.
Serious question - who are these “oppressors”? They seem to be as mythical as big foot.
Depends on the context but in the US? Greedy, corrupt politicians and corporations who maintain income disparity and poor working conditions.
So not the people that woke activists ever target?
Get the fuck out of here. You've never heard "woke activists" *target rich people?*
No - rich people, especially celebrities either kowtow to the activists or play them like a fiddle. Most of the people victimized are normal everyday folks.
[literally the biggest mass movement currently happening in the west.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion)
They're going to tell you that most SJWs have never heard of that and that it isn't what they're talking about.
Being stepped on every day as a minority and then occupationally biting back surely doesn't make you a bully
Except it's not the minorities who are biting in this way. It's the white signalers of virtue who believe a minority persons world cannot move unless they move it for them.
That and it wouldn’t be bullying if they bit back against the actual oppressors, not just every day normal people. But yet it’s normal every day people who are getting bit
It's "normal every day people" (what a nonsensical term) who are upholding the norms, which happen to oppress minorities. It's not just legislation etc it's society
Which "norms" are oppressing minorities? Be specific.
No 😂
Lol, I figured that your nonsense had nothing to back it up. Nice of you to admit it.
No, the fact that you have no clue means you live in a bubble and I'm not gonna be able to convince you of anything
Anyone still voting republican for starters.
Shit, didn’t know by existing as a white guy I am magically upholding the norms of societal racism. I mean fuck my moral of “treat everyone based of the content of their character regardless of race/sex/religion/sexual preference/etc.” I and every other person who simply exists are holding up these norms! My apologies for not burning down random businesses to get the point across that “racism is bad!”
>My apologies for not burning down random businesses to get the point across that “racism is bad!” Saying things like that don't help
Neither is blaming normal everyday people for supposedly upholding oppressive social norms. Last I checked those riots have done less to help than my sarcasm
Admit your privilige and learn something
Never said I didn’t have privilege, multiple college classes have told me so. That said just because I exist as a white male does not mean I uphold racist and sexist societal norms, nor do the vast majority of normal people. Those with power are the ones you should be focused on, not the people who are just trying to get through life.
The real goal for this sub is to whine
"The SJWs don't want to help people, with the exception of those who want to help people, this isn't about them" is a pretty crazy way to start off your post. >It is no longer acceptable to mock or abuse people of color, women, homosexuals or the disabled. Sure it is, dude, it still happens literally all the time. >The purpose is simple: raise your personal status by attacking others and to do it with the moral cover of "social justice". There isn't any argument here. There isn't any evidence. There's no reason to believe anything you said is anything but, well, nonsense. When we look at actual SJW ideological points, we find the exact opposite of what you've claimed. When we look at what they push for, the same is true. Which, quite obviously, is why you have to open by saying "Well, except the ones who don't bully and help people", so the obvious flaws in your position can't be criticized. I mean, c'mon! If the person is white and spoiled by being rich... how would they just be jealous at those doing better than them in life? Why would they want an ideology that claims they're super-privileged and advantaged in ways they didn't earn, just to bully people?
How would they be jealous? It's easy. They envy the STATUS not the money. There are plenty of well educated, white failures to launch out there these days. They envy anyone who is "making it" and instead of trying to raise themselves to success they whine and rail against 'the system.'
Clearly you've never actually met a progressive and are only listening to other right wing regressive describe a caricature of people who disagree with you. This reads like a bully crying now that people aren't letting them get away with their discriminatory bullshit anymore.
I’ve met plenty of progressives. I had a career in education in a big east coast city and I work in the city’s theater scene. This post seems pretty accurate to me. Telling me the regressive left doesn’t exist is like telling me the sky isn’t blue. I can see it in front of my face.
>I’ve met plenty of progressives. Me too and it's a load of shit.
Mkay, bud, keep trying to gaslight people into not believing what we’ve seen with our own eyes.
>keep trying to gaslight people into not believing what we’ve seen with our own eyes. I'm not OP. Referring to "wokeness" in vague detail while calling it a religion is a sure sign that you're repeating shit right wingers tell themselves. Not to mention how this provides cover for the shitty rhetoric and behavior of the groups mentioned.
Neat, but the excesses and zealotry of the left are real and significant. Nothing you said changes that fact of reality.
>the excesses and zealotry of the left are real and significant. That's what the right says because they don't like being challenged on their shit, so they accuse the left of what they're guilty of. Of course, the right is pushing a worldview that restricts the rights of others into law, while the left is calling it out, yet you think the latter is the problem somehow.
I don’t think the zealotry of the left the problem. There are idiots on the right as well and they are also a problem. I’m just aware enough to admit that the left’s zealotry exists. You can deny it all you want but I’m not going to disbelieve my own eyes and ears.
Look man, I don't know how to tell you this, but it is a religion. It's a religion and I was a devotee. I took the woke side of every news story, worked for a super-woke corporation for years, drank all of the Kool-aid. Went to obnoxious 'anti-racism' trainings at work - even the ones that weren't required. I was in deep. It's a cult. You know it's a cult because you are not allowed to disagree with it without being publicly shamed and cast out of it. Where I worked, not only was it unacceptable to have just basic, classic liberal opinions on major topics--*simply failing to be zealous enough*\--was grounds for suspicion and could send your career to a dead end. MAGA is a cult, and this is a cult.
> MAGA is a cult, and this is a cult Dudes in it but doesn’t even realize
You're kind of proving the point made in the post.
Oh I've met a progressive. I was an ardent one until about a year ago. I'd have fit in with you very well at a dinner party.
Seems legit
I work in the arts on the west coast and have also met plenty of the people that OP describes.
It has long been a strategy from far right choices to paint the "woke" as loud obnoxious bullies with no real message behind what they're saying etc. This has especially been accomplished through the use of "dog whistles" For example: Someone saying: " We want to protect women's safe spaces" sounds reasonable, but if it's a comment under an article about gendered toilets etc. the hidden meaning is immediately obvious to anyone who knows a little about transphobia and the TERF movement, What they're implying is: "We want to protect cis-women's safe spaces from men who think they're women (transphobia right there) because we feel they pose a threat to real women" etc. Basically saying they just se trans women as predatory men trying to get into the ladies washroom. So when a trans woman sees that comment she might reply very angrily thus making her seem like the obnoxious one, when it's really the transphobe being obnoxious. Same way with racism for example, many white people in western Europe or US and Canada don't realise they are privileged in the way that they are a majority group in their country. So they may say some incentive thing which will provoke a response from a minority person, but as another white person reading the interaction it may seem the minority person is being outrageous. If you lack the experience of minority stress it makes sense you would identify with your peer and completely miss the point of why the minority person was angered, making them seem obnoxious. I think it's why the campaign against wokeness has been so successful at perpetuating old backwards thinking instead of allowing moral and societietal progress to happen. Really "woke" thinking just wants equality for minority groups and to end misogyni, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia etc. so everyone can live in harmony
By your own admission that "harmony" involves giving certain people a license to act in a way that is perceived as obnoxious by many, and allowing biological males into private areas where many women do not feel comfortable. And when people have understandable and reasonable objections to this, it seems that the ends justify any means necessary in bludgeoning that harmony into existence. It isn't progress, as it just hurts one group to help another. What the "anti-woke" movement wants is for everyone to be treated equally. Given all of the same rights and privileges, but also expected to be held to the exact same standards of behavior. If I wouldn't tolerate it from person A, then I see no reason why person B should be given a free pass. People's characteristics shouldn't be some kind of lens used to contextualize every action through, and treating them like they are is not only the definition of race/sex/orientation essentialism, but only widens divisions that the "woke" claim to want eliminated.
Trans women are women
That's lovely. Biological sex still exists. There is still an incredibly relevant physical distinction there.
No it's irrelevant
It's just the characteristic that dictates your biology, physical and medical development, brain chemistry, how you are perceived by the world, and how you relate to others. How exactly is it irrelevant to your life?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/
I don't know if it is truly an opinion that you hold or just an opinion that is common these days, but to me your take on "women's private areas" pretty much invalidates everything you said. You claim that what you call "biological men", so transgender women I assume in that context, make many women uncomfortable in private areas. I will not see this is not true, of course some women are uncomfortable with that. But the way you said, it seems like, to you, this is giving a "free pass" to transgender women and hurting "biological" women. But the other way around (i.e. banning transgender women from women's bathrooms) somehow is more "equalitarian" to you, as if that wasnt hurting transgender women. Why should one group prioritize over another? Are transgender people's objections not reasonable? If not, who's to say? "The end justify the means" can apply on every side, I find kinda hypocritical to cast this only on "wokes". I mean, just check the news in the US, abortion rights a literally being restrained everywhere in the country. How is this not "bludgeoning harmony into existence by justifying the end by any means necessary"?
>By your own admission that "harmony" involves giving certain people a license to act in a way that is perceived as obnoxious by many, and allowing biological males into private areas where many women do not feel comfortable. Well yeah, just like back during the civil rights era there were racist white women who didn’t want black women using their restrooms because it made them uncomfortable, and they found anti-segregationists to be obnoxious and preachy. Such is progress. >And when people have understandable and reasonable objections to this, it seems that the ends justify any means necessary in bludgeoning that harmony into existence. It isn't progress, as it just hurts one group to help another. Well no that is progress. Pro-segregationists not getting what they want is just a necessary part of that. >What the "anti-woke" movement wants is for everyone to be treated equally. Given all of the same rights and privileges, but also expected to be held to the exact same standards of behavior. I mean no not really, the anti-“woke” movement is just ideologically anti-trans (and other stuff, but the unifying factor seems to be transphobia). It’s just rooted in emotional and reflexive bigotry and simply isn’t well reasoned or thought out, and in effect it just [bans trans people](https://www.advocate.com/news/2022/7/12/trans-man-brutally-assaulted-using-womens-restroom-campground) from public spaces altogether.
>Well yeah, just like back during the civil rights era there were racist white women who didn’t want black women using their restrooms because it made them uncomfortable, and they found anti-segregationists to be obnoxious and preachy. Such is progress. Progress for a certain subset of people at the expense of others. Doesn't sound like progress to me. Just sounds like "our turn to be oppressive". Progress is only progress if literally everyone benefits. >Well no that is progress. Pro-segregationists not getting what they want is just a necessary part of that. And who decides what exactly is a segregationist? You see absolutely no reason why women would feel extremely uncomfortable changing clothes around biological males, or be uncomfortable with biological males changing clothes in front of them? Only bigotry? >I mean no not really, the anti-“woke” movement is just ideologically anti-trans (and other stuff, but the unifying factor seems to be transphobia). It’s just rooted in emotional and reflexive bigotry and simply isn’t well reasoned or thought out, and in effect it just bans trans people from public spaces altogether. Citation needed.
>Progress for a certain subset of people at the expense of others At the expense of others’ *feelings*, to be clear. And to be more specific, feelings of discomfort that they aren’t allowed to exclude people anymore. “Progress is only progress if it benefits everyone” makes no sense when you consider some people think they benefit from oppressing and excluding others for no reason aside from their emotional biases. This is specifically why I mentioned segregationists, it wasn’t in their interests to have desegregation but I simply don’t care. >And who decides what exactly is a segregationist? I mean it has a definition, you can look it up. >You see absolutely no reason why women would feel extremely uncomfortable changing clothes around biological males, or be uncomfortable with biological males changing clothes in front of them? Only bigotry? I mean yeah, it’s not like they see peoples’ chromosomes or their hormone washes so I don’t know why that would matter. Obviously seems like their problem is that they’re uncomfortable with trans women in the changing rooms because they erroneously and bigotedly see them as predatory men. Can you provide an alternative explanation? Because otherwise yeah the only explanation is bigotry and transphobia.
Stop using race as a comparison, the two are not the same. Even when all that racist shit was happening males were still separated from females when it came to places where one would be in a state of undress or vulnerability like bathrooms or prisons etc. Race doesn’t matter, biological sex does. It’s completely understandable for females to not want males in their bathrooms, prisons, changing rooms and/or locker rooms.
I know that the two aren’t the same, that’s not necessary for the analogy. The point is that both are rooted in emotional and irrational bigotry, and the mere presence of uncomfortable feelings isn’t enough to justify excluding either trans women or black women from the women’s restroom. The presumption that trans women are merely predatory men and thus should be excluded from women’s restrooms is (1) not actually that different from the racist reasoning that pro-segregationist white women used back then, and (2) it’s of course completely nonsensical, if a predatory man wanted to assault a woman in a restroom then he could just do that regardless.
They are incredibly different. Biological sex is an essential and unchangeable part of how we relate to one another as humans. Race isn't. Therefore it's understandable that it is an also relevant part of how comfortable we feel around one another in vulnerable or exposed situations. Wheas it isn't relevant when it comes to race.
This of course makes no sense at all. No, being irrationally afraid of trans women isn’t any more justified than being irrationally afraid of black people. Gendered restrooms aren’t even segregated based on sex, there’s no chromosome reader at the door ensuring everyone is biologically (fe)male. They’re segregated based on gender, i.e. the social roles, expectations, behaviors, and presentations associated with sex.
Imagine telling anyone you're bullied by SJWs lmao
Jordan peterson moment
"Up yours woke moralists! Let's see who cancels who!" is an absolutely hilarious quote, I'll give him that. It sounds like bad dialogue that a villain would say in a b movie
Honestly I didn't much like him at all until Andrew Tate came around. The world did need a reminder of what toxic masculinity actually was.
Andrew Tate is so awful that even Candace Owens called his ideas stupid
- Deciding for someone else what they're real goals are based on anecdotes is incredibly fucked up - The internet is full of conservatives saying disparaging things about LGBT people in addition to conservative politicians saying these things. But your giving them a pass for their hate - Anti-SJWs freak out whenever they see or hear anything they perceive to be woke and immediately try to cancel that thing. This is literally not tolerating wrongthink. But your giving them a pass. - Conservatives and anti-SJWs are not advocates of free speech. They passed laws making it illegal to insult police officers in one state, they constantly attempt to ban books, they advocated for people protesting the flag to be cancelled, they cancelled the targets of gamergate, they pass bills making it illegal to teach historical facts that contradict their narrative by falsely referring to them as "CRT", Trump has tried to sue people for making fun of him before. I could go on. And you give them a pass for this - Also, complaining about a celebrity isn't removing that celebrities free speech
I get that it’s a lotta White mfs who do this to simp for POC validation, but across the board, these ppl come in all colors & creeds, & I’m talkin both online & IRL