"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Fippy]

I knew it before looking inside..this thread will again turn into a trans people debate

 

[El_Machinae]

I
I existed before then, so I am correct to conclude that it is in English a new word not about when I was young;
and the Wikipedia use of the word normative supports my interpretation that the predecessor word was 'normal'.

"Cis" vs "Trans" is a very common identifier. You'll run into them as descriptors throughout your lift. Now, granted, I don't think I heard the word 'cis sexual' when we were using the term 'trans sexual'. But identifying things as 'cis' once you start using the word 'trans' will be kinda an automatic thing.

A variant question on the use of the word 'normal'. When did blue eyed people become 'normal'?

 

[Hygro]

The meaning of normal is "in keeping with a norm, rule, or expectation." This definition can exist in two senses, there is the descriptive sense that characterizes a statistical distribution of a thing one would expect "in the wild," and there is the normative sense that creates an a priori ethical framework and evaluates the thing in relation to that framework.

The problem with the term is that bigots like to play a bit of an equivocation game, where they aggressively and obviously assert the normative sense, but retreat to the descriptive sense when pressed on it. It's obvious that they only ever mean the normative sense because this isn't a dispassionate scientific conversation about population distributions, but, rather, a political question, which is always going to be intrinsically about values and preferences: moral oughts. And as Hume noted, you can't get to an ought from an is.

I thought the direct example before the edit was pretty good.

If we can use words with their nuance, but they abuse words through their nuance, is the solution not simple to beat them with a stick and be done with it?

No one is nuerotypical, personality and behavior is a spectrum. Psych industry just like to separate people by personality type and label them as broken (disorded, deficient, etc) in order to sell them drugs.

Sure, where do you draw the line in a gradient? But the gradient, with its nonlinear curve, has a lot of people who are, for a lack of a better word, more or less neurotypical, or dare I say, normal.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Looking 'normal' is how people get described after somebody finds kids in their freezer.

Now that makes me think of "Norma"n Bates.

 

[GenMarshall]

I knew it before looking inside..this thread will again turn into a trans people debate

I had my betting chips on the thread turning into “white straight man bad” debate…..and the thread merged into the Dumpster Fire thread a half an hour later.

 

[Narz]

Sure, where do you draw the line in a gradient? But the gradient, with its nonlinear curve, has a lot of people who are, for a lack of a better word, more or less neurotypical, or dare I say, normal

I just don't find 'normal' or 'typical' a very informative word when it comes to describing a person. A normal person is one you just don't know very well yet.

Also why must one draw a line? Is there a reason to do so?

 

[Hygro]

"Cis" vs "Trans" is a very common identifier. You'll run into them as descriptors throughout your lift. Now, granted, I don't think I heard the word 'cis sexual' when we were using the term 'trans sexual'. But identifying things as 'cis' once you start using the word 'trans' will be kinda an automatic thing.

A variant question on the use of the word 'normal'. When did blue eyed people become 'normal'?

Blue eyed is obviously not normal here in Nicaragua. It seemed, possibly falsely, normal in California in my youth, though no more. It’s pretty normal in a few Northern European countries.

I guess implicitly I am using some hybrid form of common and expected default ideal type trait selection of a random person.

In a distributitive term, who is with 1, maybe 2 standard deviations from the mean?

 

[bernie14]

How else would you describe the very material conflict between white and black people in the United States through, at the very minimum, 1968?

anthropological? how did the term "woke" arise in the current vernacular? how did the laws change in 1968? through revolution or through compromise? redefining the conflict in "historical" terms does not define the current conflict, it only generalizes it.

.....I don't think this is correct. Plausibly true of the activist set (except for throwing "dialectical materialism" in there, that bits just silly), but almost exactly wrong as a description of how "wokeism" manifests at an institutional and political level. I would contend instead that "woke" liberals are basically functionalist in their outlook, that they understand society as an integrated whole, a social body, and the attempt to explain inequalities of race, gender, etc. as diseases of the social body to be treated by technical means. How else do we explain why so much of this stuff manifests, at a practical level, as corporate sensitivity policies? Does that sound like the product of people who see society as riven by irreconcilable conflict?

so the "woke" liberals are just a bunch of hypocrites, is that why they are mock worthy?

.......Unlike "normal", whose opposite state is "abnormal", which would be a rather derogatory label to apply to trans folk (if "cis" folk are "normal" as you're suggesting).

I see no reason to qualify "abnormal" as a derogatory label.

 

[EnglishEdward]

"Cis" vs "Trans" is a very common identifier. You'll run into them as descriptors throughout your lift.

The only time I came across them when I was a lad was when I was studying Latin (mostly forgotten now) and Roman history.

Most memorably in the context of Julius Caesar and cisalpine Gaul and transalpine Gaul.

And "trans" was more common in the concept of "transistor" or "transit" station.

 

[Birdjaguar]

"Cis" vs "Trans" is a very common identifier. You'll run into them as descriptors throughout your lift. Now, granted, I don't think I heard the word 'cis sexual' when we were using the term 'trans sexual'. But identifying things as 'cis' once you start using the word 'trans' will be kinda an automatic thing.

A variant question on the use of the word 'normal'. When did blue eyed people become 'normal'?

Cis and trans first came into my vocabulary in 8th grade Ancient History: Cisalpine Gaulia and Transalpine Gaulia. This side of the alps and the far side of the Alps.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, as considered from the geographical perspective of Rome.

 

[Hygro]

I just don't find 'normal' or 'typical' a very informative word when it comes to describing a person. A normal person is one you just don't know very well yet.

Bringing us back to Farm Boy’s freezer example.

I pretty much only use normal in specific and relative contexts. Lots of people I know I will call normal. The same people I will call not normal.

It’s funny to me, and perhaps this is where Strife and I overlap, we both seek to be “normal” on some level, one of us more declarative and the other through being declared as such without asking. I.e. of an iterative process of personality adjustment while trying to see which normalities worth conforming to (i.e. don’t not pick your battles) and learn them/conform. In this sense there’s and underpinning value that assimilation/social connectivity is good, and normalcy is in assimilating. Seems like a shorthand for normal is good. But only with the caveat that examining normal leads to a lot of good, an already solved metagame, to borrow an esports usage, but knowing at any time you or some noble weirdo might have a better way.

Obviously on the bookends the real realization is, once you are pretty well integrated in society and well adjusted in your personhood, to hold your position or explore for others rather than collapse into some self referencing resonance of “we are both good and normal because we changed our behavior to mimic the others changing their behavior to mimic us”.

There is of course, no “answer” to this.

 

[Farm Boy]

Also why must one draw a line? Is there a reason to do so?

The teacher is going to make some argument with a line regarding the students she would like ejected and prevented from reentering her learning bubble. As an example.

 

[João III]

The only time I came across them when I was a lad was when I was studying Latin (mostly forgotten now) and Roman history.

Most memorably in the context of Julius Caesar and cisalpine Gaul and transalpine Gaul.

And "trans" was more common in the concept of "transistor" or "transit" station.

Another example is what in English is called the West Bank, otherwise known as "Cisjordan"

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yup, I likely heard that when I was young too, but I experienced temporally related grey fat memory entropy.

 

[Narz]

Bringing us back to Farm Boy’s freezer example.

I pretty much only use normal in specific and relative contexts. Lots of people I know I will call normal. The same people I will call not normal.

It’s funny to me, and perhaps this is where Strife and I overlap, we both seek to be “normal” on some level, one of us more declarative and the other through being declared as such without asking. I.e. of an iterative process of personality adjustment while trying to see which normalities worth conforming to (i.e. don’t not pick your battles) and learn them/conform. In this sense there’s and underpinning value that assimilation/social connectivity is good, and normalcy is in assimilating. Seems like a shorthand for normal is good. But only with the caveat that examining normal leads to a lot of good, an already solved metagame, to borrow an esports usage, but knowing at any time you or some noble weirdo might have a better way.

Obviously on the bookends the real realization is, once you are pretty well integrated in society and well adjusted in your personhood, to hold your position or explore for others rather than collapse into some self referencing resonance of “we are both good and normal because we changed our behavior to mimic the others changing their behavior to mimic us”.

There is of course, no “answer” to this.

Normal is every shifting, trying to adapt to it is futile. Trying to be different for its own sake is silly as well & reactivity never a good look.

I try to appear normal enough to get left alone & improve upon social convention when its effective. Just like everyone else probably

 

[Hygro]

Normal is every shifting, trying to adapt to it is futile. Trying to be different for its own sake is silly as well & reactivity never a good look.

I try to appear normal enough to get left alone & improve upon social convention when its effective. Just like everyone else probably

There’s a lot of things that “normal people” do that I didn’t, or even actively thought was lame, that later I discovered was legit. I think many mainstream things are worth examining with charity to their value.

 

[El_Machinae]

The only time I came across them when I was a lad was when I was studying Latin (mostly forgotten now) and Roman history.

Most memorably in the context of Julius Caesar and cisalpine Gaul and transalpine Gaul.

And "trans" was more common in the concept of "transistor" or "transit" station.

So, knowing how the prefix is used, it seems somewhat obvious that 'cisgender' would exist once 'transgender' does, as words. Transgender itself is a somewhat new word, since we've been fighting to distinguish 'gender' from 'sex' for awhile (in the public forum). But, in anatomy, we've been separating the concepts for quite awhile. And, obviously, both chemistry and genetics have used 'cis-' and 'trans-' since the time where complex calculations were done on chalk-boards.

 

[NovaKart]

I came across the term collgender which meant that one’s genders were too numerous to describe. This was promoted in an article I saw on the subject as a better alternative to pangender, which could cause someone to perhaps unintentionally culturally appropriate genders specific to autistic people or certain cultures.

It made me wonder about the meaning of the prefix coll.

 

[Evie]

Okay, yeah definitely some. I accept the cis label because it’s technical and useful. But there’s something to be said about the difference between “I deserve my identity, as follows, to be acknowledged” and “with that identity acknowledged, you must accept a newly named identity for yourself”

If you accept that identities can be at all self identified, you can understand why someone who didn’t have a marker in a category would rather not have one in the first place.

They can find their own terms, but not a term that amount othering and excluding minorities, to saying one thing is how it's supposed to be and others are aberrations.

So, not "normal", which does precisely that. That it was the term used in the past is immaterial, the past as a place is generally full of horrible ways to phrase things (starting with the vast majority of terms used to refer to any minority group across history)