Eiuol

I literally spent 10 second scanning the text in question, and found the answer. I'm not really invested in this discussion, but it seems reasonable enough that if you want to continue debating this, that you read the text that SK posted. If you don't want to, don't bother debating. You don't need to swoop in and save the day because you think someone is wrong on the Internet.

Not everything needs to be substantiated if you want a discussion. It sounds like you guys are discussing whether something is sufficient evidence for a claim. If you want to get into the weeds about proof and international courts, that's fine, but it's not like somebody's going on about the earth being flat.

I mean, your description isn't what people are trying to say when they use woke to refer to an ideology. You're referring to something real, and not exclusively left-wing. It even captures many of the people who angrily accuse others of being "woke". You're trying to make a new concept for no reason, though. We already have a concept for what you're talking about, that's collectivism. And we both know that right-wing politics does the same thing.

But there is no set of ideas that you are putting together under any essential characteristic when you try to point out some particular ideology called "woke". I explained what an anti-concept is. A sure what more there is to say. They look and sound like legitimate concepts, but that's as far as it goes. They may even refer to real things. But it's not an integration with essentials. Alternatively, I could argue that right-wingers are trying to turn it into an anti-concept, and largely succeeding. This is fine, and it's a different concept. Just because a word is used in two ways doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same concept.

Woke the ideology is an anti-concept. Woke as in awareness of various social issues is a different concept, and valid.

That's not my argument. More specifically, the term woke in the ideological sense is a word that obliterates rational discussion, so the term amounts to something subjective. Not a vague concept, not an incompletely formed concept, but a concept that is formed wrongly, and co-opts an existing word.

Right-wingers are the people who consider it an ideology. The term is fine when referring to being aware of racial issues or social issues, and wanting to make things better. You could even call Objectivism woke, particularly in terms of the economic state of the country - an awareness about statism and collectivism being the underlying issue.

The more fair way to put it is that you are a victim of the propaganda. Racists historically use buzzwords in order to convince the regular people that they aren't really racist. It's also how racists get non-racists to do their dirty work for them. If you're just going to resort to calling him names, I'm going to hide the posts if you keep doing it.

I'm saying that "woke" (in terms of ideology) is also an anti-concept, intended to short-circuit or destroy conceptual thought around a topic. Like the word "extremist", you might know what people are talking about, the sort of thing they are referring to, but when you try to pin it down, there is no rational way to define it. It's usually meant to smear people, but even when it doesn't aim to do that, everything is a mess. "Woke" is a term created by right-wingers to obliterate any discussion about race. It's an attempt to create a monolithic enemy, when in fact there is massive variation in the way that people talk about race. I'm sure we can come up with various philosophical strands of thinking about race, definitely more than one. But more than that, I think the term leads people to expect that they don't need to read about historical facts. That they don't even need to pick apart what different intellectual leaders say. "Woke" to some extent is a reaction to people like Ibram X, but it never precedes an actual well-meaning discussion about race.

No, it's what you get for engaging with propaganda, believing it, and trying to get other people to believe in it. Drinking and posting is a bad idea. I suspect I was giving you way too much credit, you've posted in the past of deep personal problems, and those problems still seep into your subsequent posts.

It's not real, it's just a pejorative term. I know you think that, but you are reinforcing my point that most white people don't know very much about this whole topic at all. You probably couldn't tell me much about the civil rights movement, just in terms of at least knowing the basic facts. It looks new to you, when in fact these exact things have been around for more than 60 years. Yes, I know all about that. I don't want to discuss it, but what you doing here is at least an attempt to criticize actual claims. And besides, even with all the problems of the prejudice plus power model of racism, you probably can convince the people who believe in it that you understand the historical facts, and that you have a better way to integrate all that knowledge. Getting caught up in rhetorical flexes won't help your understanding, or convincing other people.

I know what your point was, which had nothing to do with me saying that Native Americans can't be wrapped up into one monolithic culture that we can judge, and me saying that Rand judged these so-called "savages" as having no rights. Your point was about cultural relativism and why it's wrong (I already clarified that I'm not trying to say that all cultures are created equal). Different topics.

Asking somebody if they think all white people are racist pretty much misses the point when talking about racism. Yes, you want to show that collectively judging a group of people is racist, and you might catch the occasional lazy thinker, but the discussion isn't usually about trying to say that all white people are racist. As much as I would call white privilege an anti-concept, the whole thing at issue is what racism has done to the country. I don't think there's a reason to say that there is a single motivating force, as if there is some monolithic force that is driving the way that race is discussed in America. Some might be overtly racist, others have a latent rage that they don't know how to express, others make erroneous conclusions and say that capitalism is largely to blame. There are the same variety of motivating forces as there were during the civil rights movement. So when I say the question isn't important, I'm saying that the actually important questions are about the effects of racism, asking which ideas brought us to where we are. It's not just one set of ideas that we can blame. Related, I like this movie clip. The point the main character is making is that there is a lot of nuance here, and oversimplifying is just missing the point.

Great, but this and the gist of the rest of your post is not what Rand was getting at when she called Native Americans savages.

It's not because of anything you did [that led me to leave the subsequent post up], you made no comment about the second video. There is nothing about the video that is problematic here. It doesn't even mention Q. In fact, you are the only person who says it does. The point of my joke earlier is that there isn't anything there, but you think there is. You are so certain it is there, that you think I removed your post because of the video. But it isn't. It was for continued attempt to say it was there. I'm posting about this for two reasons. One, it's an example of paranoia in action. Second, I'm pointing out a lack of tolerance towards such paranoia. Go back to the second page, he explicitly said that the post was interesting because he thinks it was referencing Q. He thinks that I removed the video from the post he just made before it, but in actuality, apparently, the server software doesn't take well to embedding certain links from X. I don't even have the power to edit posts that people make, I can only hide them. But the thing about paranoia, it's somehow more plausible that I am a soldier for the pedophiles, and I'm conspiring to silence him, and so on.