"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance
- Thread starter Angst
- Start date
- Status
Lexicus
Deity
Didn't he ragequit twitter due to being insulted a lot?
Classic projection and pretending to be a victim. "Hateboners," lmao. Would you use the term "hateboner" to describe a person who, for no apparent reason, goes out of his way to insult the physical attractiveness of a woman appearing on the cover of a magazine, or is that just free speech?
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
He's done it a few times. Always comes back for more. His grift only works so long as he throws dingers out like this.
Lexicus
Deity
it's weird, I took a look just now to see if he Tweeted anything on Ukraine, and for a platform that is supposedly part of a liberal conspiracy to censor conservatives there sure are a lot of far-right whackjobs tweeting far-right whackjob stuff on there
False flags to make the GOP look bad, obviously.....
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Maybe. There are others who are more certain.
I can regrettably confirm his fans are, in fact, not bored and have definitely not moved on.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
JP is very much still a thing, just not a media pickup/promote as intensely as it was. I think he peaked around the Peterson Zizek thing, but he's very much still making a living off the crazy post-modern neomarxist somethingsomething.
And sorry I bring up the Peterson Zizek so much, it's burned into my memory as an icon of the concurrent farce of discourse.
And sorry I bring up the Peterson Zizek so much, it's burned into my memory as an icon of the concurrent farce of discourse.
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
No worries. Traitorfish once told me I looked like Zizek and it's the only thing to have ever hurt me in the past twenty years.
You haven't bumped your shin or stepped on Legos in 20 years?
Synobun
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2006
- Messages
- 24,884
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me*.
*unless they compare me to Zizek
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
If i were wokey, i would accuse you of being a hate speech apologist
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
i am for individual freedom, as much as possible until it infringes on freedoms of other individuals.
this is a big part of the reason i dislike "woke", too. it tends to advocate for policy and practices that are very much against individual freedom in situations where it does not implicate freedom of others.
this is also why i take stances that seem against right-wing policy as well, because right wingers similarly have a suite of issues whereby they are keen on infringing on individual freedom arbitrarily. different issues, but annoyance is for the same reason.
bringing up a topic and then calling me out for responding to it as some "personal vendetta" is bad form. the person who "derails" a thread is the person who brings up the off-topic subject. at most, i contributed to your derailment by responding to it. do not pretend otherwise.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Weird how you're so focused on woke rather than the actual elimination of basic bodily autonomy
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
First to your Dumbo example: Yeah Dumbo's great, we all love the cartoon elephant and his virtues, but Dumbo is a pretty bad example, the name is an insult on purpose, and your context is one on one.Shall I start calling you "Dumbo"? I just don't think we should adjust to the safest common denominator of respecting a person's feelings, right? So what if you're not a cartoon flying elephant? I think Dumbo is a very courageous little (well, pretty big) thing and if you happen to take it to mean the other thing, the insulting thing . . . well, that's just a you problem (general you).
Do I have to torture this metaphor anymore, it do you get the point?
Besides, "not normal" is inherently aberrant anytime we're discussing human behaviour. We don't often use to to characterise something like skill; positive modifiers are used. An abnormal or irregular skill fundamentally reads differently to a special or exceptional skill.
Trying to insist that people are taking words the wrong way when the word isn't just possibly degrading (intentionally or otherwise), it's plausibly so (from context if nothing else) is very much a you problem. You as in Hygro. It's your problem.
What's weird about your whole stance is the idea that normal is a dichotomy, which is sometimes our language. Nevertheless, I think for many of us, in its most nonpolitical context, normal is the center of a normal curve, with two wings, neither one implied by being away from normal, and any value judgment of any part (left, right, center) of such a curve is so very specific.
What should be the use of normal? A performative to make people feel included? A descriptor of socially acceptable?
We have words for these things. A person can be "a normal person" without "what is normal" including one of their not-normal parameters.
No it isn't. I didn't mean it to be, ergo it isn't. That's the entire point you're driving at, isn't it? It certainly comes across that way. There have been plenty of posts where people have tried to explain to you the issues in "normal" vs. "not normal" (whatever word you want to substitute in there, go for it), and you're literally turning it into a "them" problem.
Normal is a dichotomy, despite "not-normal" covering a wide swathe of possible states. That's how things are grouped.
Anyhow, let's take about this "nonpolitical context". The context is inherently political. We're talking about how peoples' identities are respected (this came out of a repeat of the nevernding pronoun debate, among other things - correct?). You're a smart guy Hygro, I know you're a smart guy. To insist that for "many of us" (the argument is yours, and yours alone, just like mine is mine alone) "in a non-political context" normal is the centrepoint on some kind of curve or scale is to miss the point that normal is used to describe that point and no other point on the scale.
Of course, "normal" has a ton of other uses that exist and will likely always exist. I can't prescribe its use anymore than you can. All we can do is point out when we think a use is causing harm, and how to reduce or otherwise mitigate that harm (or its impact). Why are you objecting so strongly? Why shouldn't we respect peoples' triggers?
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
Because peoples triggers are weapons, too.
So you weight the alleged harm from triggers to be more than the harm inflicted by the trigger on the person suffering (from the trauma that inflicted the trigger, assuming we actually mean the same thing).
I'm not convinced.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
I’ll tell you what, when my brother in law severed his spine, I was in a state of all encompassing grief. Constant pain, with so many triggers making it worse. Should all of society decided, as every moment someone is in this type of grief, to do away with the backbone for integrity metaphor? My friend used it around me and no one stopped him and it hurt.
Ok or this: my uncle was burned as a child. The kind of burns where crazies start screaming at you because they are triggered. We could remove the burned people! Or, as he never went to burning man, a party he knew of early and would have loved but was too triggered by fires to want to participate, we could force the party to be renamed “party man” and now it’s safe.
In these examples, we haven’t even gotten to triggers as weapons, just instances where someone’s acute pain is greater than easily swappable communication. And yet it’s just obviously not the best path.
People are going to be hurt by things all the time. Some of those things don’t have to keep hurting. I’ve give another one:
In the community of those with invisible disabilities, it is common among some reactive people to take every instance of “you look fine” as a microaggression to deny your problem. This is stupid as hell. I used to be like that because I was emulating others who were sick before me. One day, I realized people were and were not meaning all kinds of things by “you look fine”. I started saying “thanks!” Because it’s also a compliment (nb so is “weird”). Guess what, those people didn’t go on to fight me in my request for accommodations. They were just making sense of it, and anyway, looking fine is good.
Ok or this: my uncle was burned as a child. The kind of burns where crazies start screaming at you because they are triggered. We could remove the burned people! Or, as he never went to burning man, a party he knew of early and would have loved but was too triggered by fires to want to participate, we could force the party to be renamed “party man” and now it’s safe.
In these examples, we haven’t even gotten to triggers as weapons, just instances where someone’s acute pain is greater than easily swappable communication. And yet it’s just obviously not the best path.
People are going to be hurt by things all the time. Some of those things don’t have to keep hurting. I’ve give another one:
In the community of those with invisible disabilities, it is common among some reactive people to take every instance of “you look fine” as a microaggression to deny your problem. This is stupid as hell. I used to be like that because I was emulating others who were sick before me. One day, I realized people were and were not meaning all kinds of things by “you look fine”. I started saying “thanks!” Because it’s also a compliment (nb so is “weird”). Guess what, those people didn’t go on to fight me in my request for accommodations. They were just making sense of it, and anyway, looking fine is good.
So your argument here is "some triggers are more difficult to avoid than others, so we shouldn't respect any of them"? I'm not misrepresenting you here, right?
Do you understand my issue with the argument, in that case? "people are going to be hurt by things all the time" is not an argument for deliberately choosing the "more pain" path when interacting with others. Now, obviously, this is tied up with your personal history, and I appreciate you sharing it. But that's exactly the general point. Everyone can and will react to traumatic events differently. The way you decided to compartmentalise is no more "correct" than the way I've dealt with my own trauma. But by insisting we shouldn't respect the triggers of others, generally, you are taking your own personal acceptance of pain dealt (to and around you) and enforcing it on others. Or at least, dealing it out to others.
There's some irony to that.
- Status
