Is Woke a religion?

[We Never Know]

I've been focused on it too and how the dude missed. So what?

Are you glad he missed? Be honest.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Are you glad he missed? Be honest.

Jump through your hoop when you try to put me on the spot? Nah you're gonna have to work for an answer.

 

[We Never Know]

Jump through your hoop when you try to put me on the spot? Nah you're gonna have to work for an answer.

You are the one that said you have been focused on how the dude missed. Maybe you could elaborate more on that.
Are you happy? Are you sad? Do tell.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are the one that said you have been focused on how the dude missed. Maybe you could elaborate more on that.
Are you happy? Are you sad? Do tell.

I was calling out an excuse.

 

[We Never Know]

I was calling out an excuse.

Oh ok. But are you happy or sad the dude missed?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh ok. But are you happy or sad the dude missed?

I'll give you this; I said ****.

 

[We Never Know]

I'll give you this; I said ****.

**** they missed or **** it happened?

 

[anotherneil]

If religion is going to get protection from the government then it is required the government have a definition to establsih what exactly it is protecting.

You're attacking a straw man. Having the definition and using it is fine; inventing another definition, one that's different from its definition, is not fine.

If it doesn't define what religion is then how can it grant the freedom to be whatever religion if it doesn't say what a religion is?

By using the existing definition; if there appears to be ambiguity then it must be interpreted broadly and inclusively.

Saying activist judges just shows you really need to study this topic so you can make well informed posts rather than coming off as repeating an echo chamber.

Ok, well you'll have to elaborate on this one. I think I have studied the topic and have made well informed posts. Maybe it is you who really needs to study this topic, not me.

You questioned my understanding of what a debate is & here you are giving me dubiously warranted instructions rather than a rebuttal. A rebuttal is what you do in a real debate, in case you're not aware.

I know. I've seen you misrepresent the scientific consensus so I just stayed out.

Where have I misrepresented the scientific consensus? I would never intentionally misrepresent the scientific consensus.

If you like splitting hairs and hearing yourself talk.

Which is what you're doing with this superfluous quibbling over the meaning of the word "religion".

I've been focused on it too and how the dude missed. So what?

So you're wrong - the dude did not miss & he did injure Trump; he also killed another person and seriously injured two others.

Was this sort of a Freudian slip on your part, as in by failing to kill Trump & as a result letting you down - so he therefore "missed"?

 

[Argentbear]

Well that's the thing. Its pushed in our face and we are even given cis labels but we are not to ask questions about it.
And/or when we do ask questions we are again labeled as transphobe or homophobe.
So why the labels?

you just asked a question....were you called a transphobe?

 

[Argentbear]

Do minds exist?

What is mind? No matter. What is matter? Never mind.

 

[Argentbear]

I am struck by the distortions to rational thought it must have taken to think what I said had any meaningful parallels to justifying a violent act of overt racism.

The distortion is on you. I didn't say anything about justifying violence i described who the was and what he did.

 

[Augustus]

The distortion is on you. I didn't say anything about justifying violence i described who the was and what he did.

Let me “unpack” it for you then.

You said:

“I was struck by your use of the same ideas 60 years later.”

The person you referred to did not support the same goals, he opposed them in explicitly racist terms.

Hence it had nothing to do with what I said which related to agreeing with the goals while disagreeing with the methods of achieving them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But as progressives tell us all the time, language evolves, and now "woke" has an additional, newer meaning, and it's the behaviors and beliefs associated with the newer meaning that we're discussing in this thread.

You seem to disapprove of progressive. You just distanced yourself.

And as I've, what I mean when I say "radical left" is people who view the world thru the lens of:

- relentless identity politics
- intersectionality theory
- gender ideology
- the oppressed vs. the oppressor worldview
- attempts to curtail free speech in the name of reducing "hate ______" (crimes, speech
- DEI
- cultural appropriation

And so on

It appears that you're offended by all of that. Why is this on your mind so much that you can throw together a list like that? I don't have any of that on my mind when not reading the words of those who have a problem with equality.

When taken to the extremes that the radical left take them to, all of them.

This is telling as well. You refer to mainstream liberals as extreme and radical. I suppose that equality is just that for many.

If a transgender female who is still physically male has a relationship with a man/male, is that a homosexual relationship?

Why would you ask that? Call it what you like.

Its pushed in our face

No, you can't keep your nose out of the business of others. You're free to look away and just not care. I do. I'm not gay or trans. So why would these issues concern me except as issues of equality and dignity?

I don't care how someone else lives their life. Its their life. But ...

That's not credible. I don't care how others live their lives if their law abiding. You do. I NEVER write posts like yours here. Why? Because it doesn't interest me much less bother me.

... their life. But when their life gives me labels such as cismale because I am a male, or labeled homophobe because I say cool for you but I don't care for it, or labeled transphobe because I question it... Those labels get my attention.

Why? Cismale what I'm called as well and am utterly indifferent. You're offended. You see it as an attack.

But nobody calls me transphobic.

Live your life.

You don't approve of that life. It's why you're agitated by people who are living it using words about you, which you call pushing it on you. Ask yourself why we're so different - why these things agitate you but not me.

Semantics are often a big battle in themselves. How something is defined.

But this isn't a semantic issue. We know what they mean by woke. It a word that means that one disapproves of the empathy in others.

One poster offered a document on DEI. Why is he so concerned about this? Why has he reviewed it? Not because he approves of diversity, equity, and inclusion but has a quibble over some issue in that document. He never identified any value at all there. Had he, one might consider him an ally in the effort to promote these values perhaps identifying a plank that he considered counterproductive to the effort. But that's not what we see. His message is clear: Stop it! Stop this DEI effort. There's no problem here with communication caused by wordplay.

Some people are comfortable with sharing and competing on a level playing field. Others feel threatened by the humanistic agenda that strives to enable people and improve the social and economic mobility of the contingent that the word diversity implies that doesn't look like them. There's no mystery here.

 

[F1fan]

It appears that you're offended by all of that. Why is this on your mind so much that you can throw together a list like that? I don't have any of that on my mind when not reading the words of those who have a problem with equality.

This is what I wonder about how some members will go and on about rather superficial issues like definitions and labels, as if these somehow affect the things they represent. If a trans person is enjoing certain liberties under more liberal attitudes why would any moderate or conservative feel as if this is a problem for them as individuals? I've asked this, and gotten no answer that reveals an intention or motive. The prejudice seems to be a blind spot for some of these more conservative folks, and they are uneasy about social change and evolving values. It's odd that it is spoken about as a problem of those who exist outside of the norm when it's really a problem of insecure people who feel uncomfortable that others are different.

This is telling as well. You refer to mainstream liberals as extreme and radical. I suppose that equality is just that for many.

Indeed, liberals are vilified as being radical because they are more likley to accept change and diversity. Why is change and diversity so bad? Historically it isn't, it's just a fact of how global societies exist and evolve. So there's something about the psychology of those who use the word "woke" as a negative. To my liberal mind what is described and defined as being "woke" are things I consider virtuous and moral.

 

[Altfish]

The rise of Woke, cultural marxism, is it a religion?

I'm woke, and I'm not religious.

Could you define 'woke' for me? As I've yet to find anyone who bands this term around as a criticism knows what it is.

 

[icehorse]

You must not have known many lesbians who outbutch you. Or ever hear of Dykes on Bikes? The best manager I ever had, she's more masculine and manly than anyone you know and she describes herself as a proud dike.
It's not a weak argument, it's that I've known women who feel people deny them their "feminity because [they] act like one of the guys." Amd, yes, they get targeted amd made into victims by people who obsess over trans women and enforcing segregation.

First off, none of that is an excuse to slur me.

Second, your experiences are not that unusual, I've known similar people.

 

[icehorse]

It appears that you're offended by all of that. Why is this on your mind so much that you can throw together a list like that? I don't have any of that on my mind when not reading the words of those who have a problem with equality.

This is telling as well. You refer to mainstream liberals as extreme and radical. I suppose that equality is just that for many.

One poster offered a document on DEI. Why is he so concerned about this? Why has he reviewed it? Not because he approves of diversity, equity, and inclusion but has a quibble over some issue in that document. He never identified any value at all there. Had he, one might consider him an ally in the effort to promote these values perhaps identifying a plank that he considered counterproductive to the effort. But that's not what we see. His message is clear: Stop it! Stop this DEI effort. There's no problem here with communication caused by wordplay.

Some people are comfortable with sharing and competing on a level playing field. Others feel threatened by the humanistic agenda that strives to enable people and improve the social and economic mobility of the contingent that the word diversity implies that doesn't look like them. There's no mystery here.

I'll say this again... The ideas on my list started off well, but have been subverted by the radical left / woke / whatever label you prefer.

IMO mainstream liberals (of which I'm one), are fine with how most of these ideas started but are either concerned about how they've devolved or would be if they had been keeping track. Based on your post, I'd guess that you just haven't been keeping track of what the radical left has been up to, and your image of these ideas is based on how things were 20 years ago.

For example, the idea of equality, has devolved into equity, and those two ideas are NOT the same. I'm all for equality, I'm quite suspicious of equity.

Another example would be DEI. I'm about to oversimplify, but I would say that some of the older affirmative action initiatives were positive for society, this has devolved into DEI, and DEI - while sounding wonderful to the casual observer - has taken on a lot of bad ideas. I did in fact read the document I posted here (it's kind of insulting for you to suggest I didn't), and I posted it not because of a few quibbles, ffs.

If you are operating under the premise that DEI is all rainbows and unicorns, I'd ask you again to really read that document, and tell us if you agree with it or not. And the details matter! This document is meant to guide ALL the community colleges in California. It was not put together sloppily.

I would say that veiled insults like "threatened by humanistic agendas" are false, ignorant, and ill informed.

I would also say that your post is another example of how the radical left often operates. When faced with any criticism of their IDEAS they revert to slurs. I didn't attack you. I criticized how some ideas have been subverted. I had no idea what you believed or didn't believe, and yet your response - out of left field - was to slur me.

I don't know much about what you really believe concerning the ideas on my list, but your posts here are very much in keeping with those on the radical left who cannot seem to have a civil discussion when any of their ideas are criticized.

 

[icehorse]

I cut it because the entire post is built on a very faulty premise. There is an actual legal definition of religion and it's not "what a religion is." You don't know. Obviously you don't know. Woke isn't a religion according to any law or legal definition and doesn't satisfy the standards that even Scientology managed to weasel through.

Do you really think this thread is about legal definitions?

 

[icehorse]

"Pushed in our face" is just code for someone else has adult relationships that you have problems with. We heard the exact same "pushed in our face" terminology back the the 70s and 80s with regards to interracial relationships. You are just the latest in a repeating cycle of twaddle.

I suspect you're not taking the phrase "pushed in our face" the way it was intended. It might be more productive to ask for clarification.

Barack Obama said something I think is quite useful:

"I prefer to understand a person before disagreeing with them."

 

[icehorse]

I think you will find man and woman used more often. Cis man. Trans man. Cis woman. Trans woman. I asked if you cared that your conceptions where out of sync with every major biological and psychological medical organization. Did you answer? Do you care?

I think you're wrong when you say "every organization", and the word "cis" is very political and ideological, not at all neutral.