Woke culture and its effects on society

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
That’s exactly what I did during 10 years of schooling, easily ignoring and rejecting the ideology. Arguably at the most impressionable age period of my life. Same for my 2 brothers, 2 sisters and 99% of peers, who all came out atheists, maybe some agnostics. There's clearly a nuance and a spectrum to the extent of which idealogical ideas are adopted and acted upon by societies. Some are, some aren't, and with mixed extents and outcomes.

Except the ideology you're refering to in this scenario is and has been on a constant decline, as opposed to a steady rise. Religiosity and Catholcism in general has been on a steady downward trend in terms of influence in the UK since the 1950's. So I don't think your ideological analogy is accurate in this case. Woke culture is and has been on a constant (and to its credit succesfull) influential march,being adopted and incorporated by virtually al aspects of society , (I honestly can't think of a societal aspect that it hasn't penetrated or tried to penetrate.) Whereas Catholocism is like a crumping old man, constantly losing ground in insitutions and (pop) culture and desperatly trying to keep its (former) relevance on society somewhat afloat.

When ideologies become (instead of become less) institutional and omnipresent in virtually all aspects of society, (which they are). There are (negative) consequences for the populus of said society inevitably follow, especially if they're at the recieving end of it. The luxury to just ignore it or opposed it in the way you're suggesting by your own lived experience is more often then not simply not optional in such a scenario.

To give an example or a rising as opposed to declining ideological force and in reference to my remark on the profoundly inaccurate and frankly irresponsible statement of suggesting to just "shrug it off" The jewish population during the weimar republic would not and where not just fine simply "ignoring and rejecting" nazi ideology at the time. Same goes for the socialist revolutions of the 30's and the same goes for when Christianity was at its expantional high-days.


I didn’t hate religion, as you suggested btw, so that’s not a reason I didn’t adopt its teachings. I am not using it as a negative example of ideology, it’s just an example of how an idealogical force (the most powerful one in the west) was easily abandoned by myself and everyone I knew. Uptake of religion is declining rapidly in the west so I would say my personal experience is not unique and it demonstrates how we are not always and by default at the mercy of ideology. Men, by default, are not at the mercy of woke bus stops signs.
well fair enough you did create that impression somewhat but my bad, thanks for clearing that up.

but as I mentioned above, your analog- time-frame if you will, is off. Ask yourself would you have easily abandoned it/ shrugged it off during catholicisms high-days in the pre-middelages? or would it be slightly more likely that you have been "cancelled" like the rest with a bit of holy fire whilst tied to a stake?

Also you keep bringing the attempted ad-absurdum of a bus stop as if thats genuinly the only thing we're talking about here, To re-itterate an earlier example, Since 2011 there has been a 30-fold increase !) in prebubescent gender-clinic referals, and the amount of clinics in the US went from 1 in 2007 (Boston) to 3 f ing hundred in the span of a decade, accompanied with (woke) legislation that makes it possible for kids to legally consent to a permanent-infirtility-sex-change before the can legally consent to sex..

let that sink in for a minute..we're talking little children here, who're being groomed to undergo permanent whomb removal or castration under the guise of "gender affirmation" (where as most kids simply turn out to be gay or autistics) for what I presume to be the sake of new woke utopia where there will be finally be "equality" in terms of numbers between trans and cis.

This is not just me being hyperbolic for the sake of discussion, this is factually happening, right now as we speak.

so no, its not just bus stops or some annoying students you can ignore m8 😅 if It where I wouldn't have started this thread. Wokeism is way further then then just that i'm afraid.

And I’m confused about who you specifically believe is most vulnerable to the woke teachings. You implied my (non-existent) hated of religion made me impervious to its idealogical force through schooling, but then also stated my compatibility with left ideas was what made me impervious to the woke idealogical force at university? So which is it, compatibility or rejection of idealogy that provides the protection? If it’s both, then who does that leave?
I never said your (presumed) hatred of religion made you impervious to its idealogical forces, In fact I think I acknowledged and sympathised that you had a rough time with it, (hence me assuming you dislike/hated it) What I implied is that your affinity with the (political) left in general makes you precieve Woke culture as less problematic <(pun)/ acceptable as it fits on your prefered side of the political spectrum.

Now you might very well be a resilient person regardless of what ideological force if thrusted upon you, regardless of its attraction or repulsivity to you and if thats the case (me not being a psych and all) then great, good for you.

but and i'm going to stress this again, you alone hensmon, and your lived experiences are not society in general

Which is also an answer to whom I specifically believe is most vunerable to Woke cultures beratings.
Its the type of person who is quite impressionalbe, who cares what people think of him, scores more then average on neuroticism etc.
 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
I fundamentally disagree. Revolutions can work in some cases and not others.
yup very rarely they do indeed and almost never

>In the way the revolution intended it<

which was my point.

and if you fundamentally disagree with that, then lets play the following game and see how long we can last.

you give us some examples of radical revolutions and top down policies that 1 succeeded and 2 had their intended effect and where sustainable in the long run.
and for every one you give, I give you 3 for each one that 1, didn't succeed and 2 didn't have their intended effect on society or even the opposite.
 

Magnevi

aka Voci
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
580
Thanked
610
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Website
soundcloud.com
I couldn't give two squats about a persons sex, prefered sex or transition for that matter. as long as he. she or "zer" isn't put there because of and only because of said transition.

I don't follow this discussion much, since I'm not really able to write anything back in sophisticated English. But a little one then:

I really WANT to agree with you on this one.

But there is a deeper problem within humanity, that causes the issue to keep exisiting. The issue is simple: currently mostly white (old and straight) males are in top positions. They currently rule everything. Whenever a black gay tattood guy, and a white straight one apply for a job, and they are 100% equally capable, then unconsiously, the white old straight guy who decides, will always pick the white straight guy.

Eventhough he (truthfully so) will always say: I didn't pick them because of race/skincolor, etc.

There's just something in humans right now, that does the deciding for them.

It's culture (and maybe even biological, feeling safe around similar beings?), that has been around for a loooooong time. This can't be removed simply by saying: From now on, race, skin, gender, sexuality, it doesn't matter anymore.

I really WANT it to work like that... because the mind says: this makes sense. But it doensn't work this way. Unfortunately.

-------

So to conclude: Maybe, it's actually the right decision, to sometimes prefer the trans-politician who is 98% capable of the job, rather than the white straight guy, who was actually 100% capable at it.

Maybe. Because it's not only about the actual work he/she/it does. It's also about how it reflects back on the society. About visibility. Having role models.

And those things are worth something too.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
why 98% all of a sudden, and not a 100% as you sketched in earlier analogy? @Magnevi

because it completely undermines your entire argument about the person being racistly chosen, instead of merrit.


Also, what makes you think that by doing so, (so picking less capable minorities for the sake of social engineering) you're going to get rid of inated, natural biases in the end? Because thats not what the science sais. Both the social sciences aswell as psychology.

what makes you think that would work positively in the long run? (as opposed to creating more racial/sexual resentment and tribal tendencies over time?)
 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
Maybe. Because it's not only about the actual work he/she/it does.
no, it DEFINITLY is m8.

Because if its not then the person is basically nothing more then an excuse-nword. One of the most partronising and racist stereotypes in my book at least.

The role model should always be the most capable one, full stop. If you put an uncapable or less capable minority there for the sake of diversity, who consequently is going to a worse job, then you're not only creating a bad role model, but you're also lending more validity to the idea of white supremacy AND you're creating more resentment on both sets of the isle because of it.

this is why these type of Woke policies are so cancerous and dangerous. (If not for the only reason that there ARE plenty of actuall 100% capable minorities out there and thriving)

if I can change your reasoning somewhat, If you have two 100% capable candidates, and you need a factor to choose between them other then a coin-toss, then a rolemodel factor is in my opinion a perfectly valid one. but other then that? no. bad idea.
 
Last edited:

Magnevi

aka Voci
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
580
Thanked
610
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Website
soundcloud.com
I understand all your arguments. But it's a fact there is little diversity in top positions (and sports). So that means:

- 1. Currently the world is not "hiring the most capable ones" and this needs attention. (Because if the world did, there would be automaticaly some diversity)

And/Or

- 2. People from various minorities are simply not capable enough, for whatever reasons, and therefor are not picked. Which would be very cringy and probably also needs attention

-----

Before, I wrote:

100% capable white man vs 100% minority >>> White man will be picked.

But.... This might be too positive. Now, I assume with the 2 choices above, you will say is mainly the first one. Questionmark. If so, then I start to agree.

(To some degree I do believe #2 is also true. But those are a direct result of the current white straight society, where minorities for various reasons don't experience the same eduction as the white straight ones. But I want to make a different point).

Because..... Those percentages are probably wrong. It's probably:

75% capable white man vs 100% minority >>> White man will be picked.

----

And then your conclusion is the right one. We should START hiring purely on capability, because we don't do that at this moment.
 
Last edited:
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96 and jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
Sounds pretty great tbh.
permanently castrated and infertile children with a 60% suicide rate sound pretty great! according to Hot Tuna. 😅 (y)

thanks for reminding me again why i'm not an (extreme) leftist.
 

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
We should START hiring purely on capability, because we don't do that at this moment.
Correct, which is why Hiring Dr Rachel Levine wasn't a good thing, and which was the entire point me (and atragun) made, or at least tried to make.

two states across from her was a (sex) minority, who did a better job and who should have been picked based on capability/result, but because the Woke ladder of oppresion ranked her lower, she wasn't picked.

The whole problem with placing less capable minorities at top positions for the sake of diversity as opposed to the sake of compentence is that you're basically just replacing one (unfairly) privileged class with another. Except this one is by earlier analogy less capable at the job in question which sooner or later people are going to notice, Lending even more credence to the idea of white supremacy.. which I think we can agree on is undesirable.

I for one am perfectly in favor of blind resume's.
 
Last edited:

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
@Magnevi

question. you mentioned it being a problem that there is little diversity in top positions and sports (I find the sports thing a bit laughable, as it is chuck full with diversity) but that aside.

Do you also consider it a problem that there is little diversity in things like lower positions, prisons, violent deaths etc?

if no: why not?

and if yes. Should those in a similar manner be equalized aswell?
 

Magnevi

aka Voci
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
580
Thanked
610
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Website
soundcloud.com
I don't really understand the prision-violent death question.

The higher positions are about freedom, fair chances for everyone. Equality.

People in prison did something they shouldn't have. I assume the goal is: zero people in prison, zero muders. So take a look at who is in prision, and why. And try to avoid that.

(As for sports. The problems are mostly with male sports, and mostly with soccer. The fear of a small group of "fans" is way too big.).

Anyway: This is essentially leading to a broad subject on how to run a society as a whole. I don't have the answer ;)
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: jetflag

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
I don't really understand the prision-violent death question
well... you (apparently) seem to want equality when it comes to what you percieve to be "nice and privileged positions" so top sport. top board leadership positions of power, wealth etc. and so i'm wondering if your drive and desire for equality is also present for the "not so nice and dispossesed" things. So homelessness, disability or prison/violent death.

are you ok with those being un-equal?

The higher positions are about freedom, fair chances for everyone. Equality.
Are they now? 😅

You think that higher hierarchical positions in our society..so board-leadership of a large company and top politic positions, mainly consisting of 80 work weeks, stress, the massive burden of responsibility and constant relentless competition from peers and if you do that right you might earn money and power..

is about freedom/fairness and equality?

look, you're A not making sense when you name freedom, fairness and equality in the same sentence as some of those concepts are diametrically opposing concepts. and B. you have a very idealized view of the top positions i would say.. we certainly differ in opinion here m8.. I wouldn't want to have to adopt that lifestyle for all the money and power in the world..

People in prison did something they shouldn't have. I assume the goal is: zero people in prison, zero muders. So take a look at who is in prision, and why. And try to avoid that.
yeah but that wasn't the question. the question wasn't if the goal was 0 crime, the question was.

Whats your stance on the inequality in for instance prison representation or violent deaths or rape? Should or Shouldn't that be equalized aswell? and if you can't do that by getting 0 crime (which, lets be real. you can't) how are you going to do that?



Notice how before you seemed perfectly willing and able to apply affirmative action before for the sake of equality why not now?
 
Last edited:

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,481
Thanked
717
yup very rarely they do indeed and almost never

>In the way the revolution intended it<

which was my point.

and if you fundamentally disagree with that, then lets play the following game and see how long we can last.

you give us some examples of radical revolutions and top down policies that 1 succeeded and 2 had their intended effect and where sustainable in the long run.
and for every one you give, I give you 3 for each one that 1, didn't succeed and 2 didn't have their intended effect on society or even the opposite.
No, I agree with you. I still think we need our radicals like Malcolm X to make a path for more moderate people that can make a long-lasting difference, like our Martin Luther King Jrs.
 

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
I think by mentioning King, you've just given me the greatest topical example of a failed revolution at least in terms of intent.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

And here we are. A future in where governments, businesses, and universities are pushing affirmative legislation / action, ensuring skin-color preference over achievement/caracter and where literature that divides society up into classes of victim and oppressor based on skin color, is taught to children in schools as gospel.

🤷‍♂️
 

dmgtz96

Elite Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
1,481
Thanked
717
I think by mentioning King, you've just given me the greatest topical example of a failed revolution at least in terms of intent.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

And here we are. A future in where governments, businesses, and universities are pushing affirmative legislation / action, ensuring skin-color preference over achievement/caracter and where literature that divides society up into classes of victim and oppressor based on skin color, is taught to children in schools as gospel.

🤷‍♂️
Yeah, we should have just all gone full-on Malcolm X
 

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
Yeah that most certainly would have brought forth the race-utopia in all its glory, Him making backhand deals with the KKK and all :LOL:

0b00d4fb-235f-4783-a685-01ff232bf553.jpg
 

Magnevi

aka Voci
TranceFix Crew
Joined
Jul 3, 2020
Messages
580
Thanked
610
Location
Assen, Netherlands
Website
soundcloud.com
I wouldn't want to have to adopt that lifestyle for all the money and power in the world..

Well, I'm with you on that. I personally don't strive for those jobs either. I have a calm life with a job I like that doesn't give me much stress, yet enough money. But for those who want to achieve "more" (and this counts for any job application of course), they should not be judged based on their identity (race, gender etc). That's all I'm saying.

Whats your stance on the inequality in for instance prison representation

Well, applying for a job and "ending up in prison" are way different things, that don't make a fair comparison. But I'll go with you:

The question is: what issue do you want to solve?

If a person from a minority doesn't get a job, only because he is a minority, while being the perfect candidate, that's discrimination. That's the issue that I think needs attention. [Like we concluded, we should start with looking at just the capability of someone]

Now you ask me about prisions. What is the problem with the prison that needs to be solved?

Do you mean the system (police, media, judges) before people get in jail ? If so, then yeah, that's an interesting topic. But a compeletely different one imo. And a difficult one. Since groups of people and criminality-% aren't balanced like they should when you only look at the ammount of people. Some groups have very high criminal-%, while others way less. (How many gays are in jail for murdering.... I wonder...)

If a group has an extremely high criminal-%, then it makes sense to check upon them more. Eventhough that's discrimination. And it's also creating your own truth, since you will find more criminals in that group, since you check them more. Not an easy topic, but imo a different one from the job applying stuff :)
 

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
When you can't defeat your enemies...
...comprimise on you both having your own ethno state, similar to the nazi's

They can both by all means have it by the way, as long as I don't have to live in either of them.. :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmgtz96

jetflag

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
712
Thanked
490
Well, I'm with you on that. I personally don't strive for those jobs either. I have a calm life with a job I like that doesn't give me much stress, yet enough money. But for those who want to achieve "more" (and this counts for any job application of course), they should not be judged based on their identity (race, gender etc). That's all I'm saying.

Not even if they're cis, straight, white and male and make up the majority in a certain field?

Well, applying for a job and "ending up in prison" are way different things, that don't make a fair comparison. But I'll go with you:

The question is: what issue do you want to solve?

If a person from a minority doesn't get a job, only because he is a minority, while being the perfect candidate, that's discrimination. That's the issue that I think needs attention. [Like we concluded, we should start with looking at just the capability of someone]

Now you ask me about prisions. What is the problem with the prison that needs to be solved?

Do you mean the system (police, media, judges) before people get in jail ? If so, then yeah, that's an interesting topic. But a compeletely different one imo. And a difficult one. Since groups of people and criminality-% aren't balanced like they should when you only look at the ammount of people. Some groups have very high criminal-%, while others way less. (How many gays are in jail for murdering.... I wonder...)

If a group has an extremely high criminal-%, then it makes sense to check upon them more. Eventhough that's discrimination. And it's also creating your own truth, since you will find more criminals in that group, since you check them more. Not an easy topic, but imo a different one from the job applying stuff :)
so, if I can steelman you.. if the unequal distribution/over representation of one group in, in this case prisons is the result of a fair system (so if you commit a criminal offense, you go to jail) you are ok with it. there is no need to equal those statistics by for instance arresting more gays or women etc.

aight.

Then if the unequal distribution/ over representation of one group in say..big business (old straight white males bosses) is álso the result of a fair system (so if you concientiously work your ass of 80 hours a week for 40 years, you've earned your spot on the executive board roomtable there) are you also ok with it? or does that unequal statistic somehow then a problem and we need (forced) diversity hiring?
 
Last edited: