In general, I have come to believe that what we call "wokeness" can be viewed instead as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
Other authors have called wokeness "performative diversity", and I think that's true to an extent, but the performative aspects are a symptom, not the actual problem. It is performative because the ultra-orthodox are engaged in rituals and following laws that must not be broken no matter what.
When I was younger, and we'd make racist jokes. The point wasn't that we believe in racism, it's that racism itself was the joke, a thing we were mocking by using it so impotently. The ultra-orthodox progressives couldn't see that, because they can't get past the fact that a rule was broken.
Many people like myself say that we used to be "default liberals", because 20 years ago we did agree with progressive thought. I think the reality is that we still do. Progress is something the left and the right agree on to a large extent. The only question is what progress looks like. The people who say "the left left me" are often progressives who intend to stay progressive, but are not ultra-orthodox.
For those who knee-jerk say they aren't progressive, tread carefully -- Christianity itself is a fundamentally progressive religion. Unlike something like Daoism or Buddhism which views the world as cyclical and thus will never progress but instead you need to learn to stop worrying about the physical world and focus on trying to cultivate your inner world by letting go of worldly concerns, Christianity sees the world as saved from a purely cyclical future through God's grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We are progressing towards the kingdom of heaven spiritually, but by following natural law we are aligning with Gods plan for us and so our time on Earth becomes more like the Kingdom of God over time. In some ways, the woke resemble the Pharisees, focused on following rules of God while denying His son and ultimately crucifying the Son of God.
The recent election of Donald Trump helps show this in full effect. Donald Trump didn't just win because the ultra-orthodox's hated "STRAIGHT WHITE MEN" voted for him, he voted from a coalition that included many women, more blacks than any Republican president in a century, and a growing contingent of latinos. More Jews than normal voted for Trump. The ultra-orthodox progressives can only see this through their narrow lenses, and so they call women who voted for Trump misogynistic, and latinos and blacks who voted for Trump racist. They're doing everyone a favor having their hypocrisy on full display.
I believe the reason for the success of ultra-orthodox progressivism is multi-faceted.
1. As I investigated in another post, there are two forms of idiocracy: One populist and anti-intellectual, one elitist and pseudo-intellectual. By taking on the trappings of ultra-orthodox progressivism, an individual who is intellectually lazy can take on the trappings of class and intellect without putting in work besides regurgitating someone else's ideas.
2. Large organizations are extremely compatible with ultra-orthodoxy. They like that there are defined, relatively unchanging rules that they just need to comply with. Contrast with a purer progressivism, which constantly questions even itself and its own axioms and can change its mind on what progress is. It's easier to hammer a zero tolerance policy out than to go through an intellectual journey of finding answers.
3. Ultra-progressive progressivism is militant and seeks to destroy opposition. In the short term, this is like a wasp who stings anyone who comes close to their nest. In the short term, people will stay away from the nest. In the longer term, eventually someone will shoot some bug spray or hire an exterminator.
Only one of the three reasons can be sustainable. The first fails once people stop seeing your jargon filled pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook as intelligent, the third fails once everyone realizes nobody actually likes you. The second will only last as long as the organizations think there's a benefit to your ideology, and if it seems to cost too much youll lose institutional support regardless of your digestibility.
Yes, FBXL Social which I'm the admin of has a max character limit of 60,000 characters. There's only been a few times I've come close to that, but I like giving ideas space to stretch their legs, and while the fediverse might not be the ideal format for it, it's the freest platform anywhere since we own it ourselves.
"Doctor Angelicus, it seems to me that because God is good, his commandments to help us achieve the kingdom of heaven are not things that ultimately hurt us in this material world, but help us. I believe this is in accordance with what you call natural law, that God's law is not in disharmony with nature. We follow His commandments, and not only are we saved spiritually by the grace of God, but the material world we live in gets better for it. Of course, we live in a world after the fall, so in this imperfect world good things will still happen to bad people and bad things will happen to good people and it may not immediately be apparent that the commandments will help us, but that's what patience and humility are for. Because the material world becomes so much better, we become arrogant, thinking we achieved all this on our own without God, and so cast aside His commandments. Like Adam, we leave the garden of Eden as we are doomed to do whenever we choose to allow our Hubris to grow too strong. This would be a tragedy like Sisyphus but for two things: First, God's grace to give us entry to the kingdom of heaven. Second, we do fall, but because we have been saved through Christ, we are not like Adam -- we grow and are a little stronger, so when we once again find His commandments and follow them again, we aren't starting just outside Adam's Eden, but near the gates of our own metaphorical Eden, a new high point for humanity on Earth. To be clear, we need not fall to grow, and we do not need to choose pride and can instead choose humility so we do not fall. However, when we do fall, when we do allow ourselves to be taken over by pride we do not fall all the way, reflecting God's grace reflected in our natural state."
(I'm just a fool playing with ideas in the form of a dialogue, so don't take this as anything but that)
(I'm just a fool playing with ideas in the form of a dialogue, so don't take this as anything but that)
The whole planet has been bathing in this poison too long.
I'm hoping change is finally in the air, not just for us but for everyone living under the haze.
I'm hoping change is finally in the air, not just for us but for everyone living under the haze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcWkzTT_DUY
Shit, turns out this was a Destiny biography in rap form the whole time.
Shit, turns out this was a Destiny biography in rap form the whole time.
Imagine that there's all kinds of people out there who think the fediverse is just mastodon and the creepy far left cheese pizza enthusiasts, when we have compelling art that blows that narrative away. (Oh god, bring some towels....)
A while back I realized that this time next year Canada could have cheap gas and plastic straws.... And that makes me Maple MAGA for sure.
That video of him talking like your sketchy brother begging for money was pretty memorable. "We will make it loan! We pay you back in full!"
Australia is inexorably heading toward an existential crisis if it embarks upon the revision of syntactic configurations and the deliberate selection of lexemes, driven by the escalating lexicographical incompetence endemic within the broader populace, whose functional illiteracy now appears to be a pervasive epistemological impediment to even rudimentary textual engagement.
Considering that Canadian banks are as unsustainable as any business on planet Earth, it makes sense for them to also be promoting other unsustainable policies.
"Oh, you're such a big strong man, Mr. FEMA executive! Please tell me more about how you ignored counties that voted Red in 2020!"
Semantics is the study of meaning in language, symbols, or signs.
So if one were Anti-Semantic, one would reject meaning, including the meaning of (((brackets)))
It's just a dumb play on words.
So if one were Anti-Semantic, one would reject meaning, including the meaning of (((brackets)))
It's just a dumb play on words.
If you're "Anti-Semantic", that would mean.... putting words in (((brackets like this))) would be meaningless because you don't care when stuff adds meaning like that... Ironic, isn't it?
Most of my money has been spent on GOG in the past few years because most of the games worth looking at were made over 15 years ago.
(Shame they went woke, but at least it's DRM-Free so I can keep all my games locally)
(Shame they went woke, but at least it's DRM-Free so I can keep all my games locally)