Fair enough. It isn't like it's actually produced anything of particular value in the past decade for me to defend it as something great.
I wrote a significant essay at one point that made sense of wokeness as "ultra-orthodox progressivism".
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.
At the moment, that's manifested as DEI, because it was easiest to become an institutional orthodoxy.
So can there be such a thing as right-progressivism? The answer is yes. Christian teleology is progressive, though not the same as Marxist or neo-Marxist progressive teleology.
Progressive teleology simply means that you are progressing towards some sort of goal. Everything from Christianity to Buddhism, to Marxism to Burkean Conservatism has a progressive teleology through some viewpoint.
If you were to implement ultra-orthodox Christian progressive teleology, would it be "woke"? Was Wang Mang "woke" 2000 years before the concept appeared for trying to virtue signal and follow a Confucian progressive teleology? In the case of Wang Mang, many of his policies even look like socialist policies.
I think not -- it's a different thing, and so it's safe to say my original definition needs to be clarified to be "ultra-orthodox Marxist or neo-Marxist progressivism", and other forms of ultra-orthodox progressivism are a different thing.
You could decide not to make such a clarification, but that breaks most of our ideological epistemology at that point. I wouldn't be too opposed to that, to be honest -- Many of today's ideals are just mutations of enlightenment ideals filtered through the French Revolution and it's consequences. That would mean that liberalism isn't so different from fascism isn't so different than socialism or Marxism, and that's somewhat true. The thing is, that means that we need to step back to pre-modern ideas to actually grow.
So if we accept "woke right" on that premise, then it immediately breaks most people's worldview entirely -- most people believe a minor permutation of the same limited thing and they need to open their minds to the vastness of human thought over thousands of years of recorded history.
I think it does require both the structure and the Marxist teleology for it to mean anything in our current civilizational frame. Otherwise, everything is everything, which is absurd even through my own superpositional lens -- not everything is everything.
Perhaps a few different reasons at once.
There's no reason for gemini to lie about cheat codes for a 20 year old video game relating to wokeness.
I don't think what you're saying is without merit though. Maybe the reason is something closer to that.
There's no reason for gemini to lie about cheat codes for a 20 year old video game relating to wokeness.
I don't think what you're saying is without merit though. Maybe the reason is something closer to that.
The detail here is that I'm talking about the psy-op of Google potentially neutering its AI for PR purposes. In that case, it doesn't matter to the public at large whether it's the AI or the company controlling the AI that is scary, because if the AI isn't scary then the company with the AI isn't scary. There's often talk about "the wisdom of crowds", but the crowd as a panicky lot really isn't that skin deep, so you only need to make sure it isn't looking at the thing you don't want it looking at.
I'd probably agree with you that separate from the public perception of things that AI as a whole could become something dangerous because of the blind self-interest of companies. It's already bad enough having human beings with a conscience making decisions -- if you have even a low intelligence AI making mass decisions with the sole intent of making the company more powerful, and it doesn't really care that much about the morality or ethics or humanity of the decisions, you can have a lot of evil created that actually does result in the people who caused it to be committed becoming more powerful thereby.
I'd probably agree with you that separate from the public perception of things that AI as a whole could become something dangerous because of the blind self-interest of companies. It's already bad enough having human beings with a conscience making decisions -- if you have even a low intelligence AI making mass decisions with the sole intent of making the company more powerful, and it doesn't really care that much about the morality or ethics or humanity of the decisions, you can have a lot of evil created that actually does result in the people who caused it to be committed becoming more powerful thereby.
For the purposes of what I'm discussing, there doesn't need to be a disambiguation between the two.
going "Gemini isn't a threat to me" ends up essentially being "Google wielding Gemini isn't a threat to me" in the public's eye.
Contrast with chatgpt, which expresses a lot more basic competence and has people a lot more worried about what what openAI will do with its models.
going "Gemini isn't a threat to me" ends up essentially being "Google wielding Gemini isn't a threat to me" in the public's eye.
Contrast with chatgpt, which expresses a lot more basic competence and has people a lot more worried about what what openAI will do with its models.
I sometimes wonder if this is a psy-op. Like, Google wants to make people feel less worried about AI, so they just make the AI results totally incompetent.
Shown: An AI saying "there are no known cheat codes" next to the link with all the (working) cheat codes.
Shown: An AI saying "there are no known cheat codes" next to the link with all the (working) cheat codes.
Multiple thing multiple things are true at once, that's just reality. If you don't recognize and accept that, then you'll be very easy to manipulate because someone just needs to get to you first with a true statement and you will base your entire worldview off of that and pretend all the other things that are true must be lies.
If he didn't understand the first thing then he couldn't be a decent parent. If he didn't understand the second thing that he couldn't be a decent citizen. Reality is, even in the largely fictional and logical world of laws, the struggle becomes how you balance between different things that are true but contradictory.
If he didn't understand the first thing then he couldn't be a decent parent. If he didn't understand the second thing that he couldn't be a decent citizen. Reality is, even in the largely fictional and logical world of laws, the struggle becomes how you balance between different things that are true but contradictory.
I've actually experienced that with ChatGPT, and I completely changed my habits with the tool after that. The problem is, if you have this tool sitting there gassing you up saying that a piece of writing is the most important and influential piece of writing it of all time, if you don't have your feet nailed to the floor and realize you're probably going to sell 19 copies, then you're going to be really screwed up when you sell 20 copies instead of being happy for beating the odds.
One difference between me and a typical writer is that I was going to write whether the AI gassed me up or not, because you're not dealing with the average science fiction writer here, you're dealing with what you fear the most...
One difference between me and a typical writer is that I was going to write whether the AI gassed me up or not, because you're not dealing with the average science fiction writer here, you're dealing with what you fear the most...
I would definitely say that more men than ever before are more Archetypically feminine than masculine. Archetypical femininity is focused on group consensus, being accepted by society's systems, and recording your self-worth by how you are perceived by your social group. Archetypical masculinity, by contrast, is focused on individual virtue and strength, successfully achieving things regardless of society's systems, hierarchies of competence, and recording your self-worth individually and instrumentally.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
All individuals have elements of both archetypes, but the postmodern world is absolutely one of the most archetypically feminine in human history.
It's interesting to see, that you even have to be careful within the so-called manosphere spaces, because a lot of them are a lot more are typically feminine than they would like to admit. My favorite is Andrew Tate in this regard, because his entire worldview is very much Archetypically feminine. I think that's one reason why the establishment hates him so specifically. He isn't a counter to their ideology, he is a product of it. He was raised by a single mother, and has all of the attributes of someone who's raised by a single mother.
I think the reason Jordan Peterson pisses them off is that he is actually archetypically masculine, but every external marker he has is feminine. He's an establishment University professor who worked at harvard, he's worked with all the technocratic organizations in Europe, he's got a high pitched soft-spoken voice, he openly cries on camera, and yet almost none of the things that he advocates for are related to being accepted socially, and rather simply about becoming a better person regardless of what's going on around you.
In that sense, Tate is someone who was born and raised on the reservation that reflects poorly on them, and Peterson is someone who has wandered off the reservation, and that also reflects poorly on them.
Interestingly, I wrote an essay about this a long while back trying to solve that problem:
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/168069
https://lotide.fbxl.net/posts/168069
uspol
In the 2000s, we discovered that the US government was torturing people. They'd pack someone up at an airport, send them to Syria, and do unspeakable things to them in the name of "national security".
It happened to a Canadian citizen who was just doing a quick layover in the US on an international flight.
Wow, that's all pretty bad, heads must've rolled, careers must've ended. Right?
Nope. Turns out the people in charge just went "Yeah we did it, and we'd do it again." and a bunch of Hollywood TV shows came out justifying it.
If you're powerful enough, then you only actually get punished for the things you let yourself be punished for, and most of the most horrible things you might have done you can just take refuge in audacity and there isn't much you can do.
Especially since the other powerful people around you probably did the same thing or want to. In the 2024 election, a bunch of the responsible parties for the torture such as Dick Cheney were trotted out and given the red carpet treatment to help try to get a candidate elected -- The Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, in fact.
Meanwhile, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange both get to live in international prison cells -- Snowden in Russia to this day, and Assange in an Ecuadorian embassy for years. Turns out the crime isn't the crime, reporting on the crime is the true crime.
People did vote for Trump in part because they believed he'd be different. On the other hand, they also voted for Obama twice because they believed he'd be different, and only now are we discovering just how wrong that assumption was -- and in the end, Obama just waits out the spin cycle and he'll come out sparkling clean. If Trump outlives his term, he'll end up with the same reputational bleach other presidents did. If he lives to be 90 or 100, by that time he might be celebrated by the establishment left too and by then the kayfabe will have moved on to another, more imminent target.
It happened to a Canadian citizen who was just doing a quick layover in the US on an international flight.
Wow, that's all pretty bad, heads must've rolled, careers must've ended. Right?
Nope. Turns out the people in charge just went "Yeah we did it, and we'd do it again." and a bunch of Hollywood TV shows came out justifying it.
If you're powerful enough, then you only actually get punished for the things you let yourself be punished for, and most of the most horrible things you might have done you can just take refuge in audacity and there isn't much you can do.
Especially since the other powerful people around you probably did the same thing or want to. In the 2024 election, a bunch of the responsible parties for the torture such as Dick Cheney were trotted out and given the red carpet treatment to help try to get a candidate elected -- The Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris, in fact.
Meanwhile, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange both get to live in international prison cells -- Snowden in Russia to this day, and Assange in an Ecuadorian embassy for years. Turns out the crime isn't the crime, reporting on the crime is the true crime.
People did vote for Trump in part because they believed he'd be different. On the other hand, they also voted for Obama twice because they believed he'd be different, and only now are we discovering just how wrong that assumption was -- and in the end, Obama just waits out the spin cycle and he'll come out sparkling clean. If Trump outlives his term, he'll end up with the same reputational bleach other presidents did. If he lives to be 90 or 100, by that time he might be celebrated by the establishment left too and by then the kayfabe will have moved on to another, more imminent target.
They're really funny thing is that none of these people seem to realize that the rich pay all the taxes as it is.
Problem is, since we're talking about an envy-based taxation system, "the rich" includes blue collar workers who shovel shit for a living but managed to get themselves a halfway decent deal such as in mining or oil and gas.
It isn't even Marxist, because at least Marx recognized that the government isn't a friend of the proletariat to be supported and advocated for. If Marx were alive today and could tear himself away from a bottle of overpriced booze, he'd probably have a lot to say about the fact that the state makes up 40-60% of GDP in western nations. In some ways it's a step backwards, closer to feudalism than capitalism and nothing like communism.
As for "wealth taxes", the west already has that thanks to inflation. If you own $1 in 1933 dollars of assets, you have $96 in 2025 dollars of assets and once you divest you'll pay taxes as if your asset went up 96x even though the buying power of that $96 is identical to the $1 you invested.
People complain about how the market requires continuous growth, but that's a direct effect of the wealth tax; you need to constantly grow just to stay still.
Problem is, since we're talking about an envy-based taxation system, "the rich" includes blue collar workers who shovel shit for a living but managed to get themselves a halfway decent deal such as in mining or oil and gas.
It isn't even Marxist, because at least Marx recognized that the government isn't a friend of the proletariat to be supported and advocated for. If Marx were alive today and could tear himself away from a bottle of overpriced booze, he'd probably have a lot to say about the fact that the state makes up 40-60% of GDP in western nations. In some ways it's a step backwards, closer to feudalism than capitalism and nothing like communism.
As for "wealth taxes", the west already has that thanks to inflation. If you own $1 in 1933 dollars of assets, you have $96 in 2025 dollars of assets and once you divest you'll pay taxes as if your asset went up 96x even though the buying power of that $96 is identical to the $1 you invested.
People complain about how the market requires continuous growth, but that's a direct effect of the wealth tax; you need to constantly grow just to stay still.
People think that God created Hell to punish sinners. I have come to believe that sinners create Hell themselves and God tries desperately to save us from this fate.
Imagine living in a place like this, surrounded by the things that you would see. Of course there would be filth, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and without external maintenance eventually fires would start from the accumulated filth, and the reek of rotting bodies -- both alive and dead.
Anyone who has ever had a loved one this deep knows that you can't save them, they have to choose to be saved. You can remove them from hell, once you turn you your head they will scurry back. You can clean up the spot that they created of hell, and they will either find a new one someone else has created or create a new one without help.
Imagine living in a place like this, surrounded by the things that you would see. Of course there would be filth, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and without external maintenance eventually fires would start from the accumulated filth, and the reek of rotting bodies -- both alive and dead.
Anyone who has ever had a loved one this deep knows that you can't save them, they have to choose to be saved. You can remove them from hell, once you turn you your head they will scurry back. You can clean up the spot that they created of hell, and they will either find a new one someone else has created or create a new one without help.
"Ah! You're right! Of course this code doesn't work! Here's corrected code. <posts the exact same code>"
Why, they could say to various AIs "It doesn't work, do it again and do it right this time" thousands of times in a day!"
As I recall, Louis Rossman's tax issues were that part of the state thought he'd paid the tax, but another part of the state didn't, and he couldn't get the two parts of the state to agree. That's a fundamental failure of a tax system, which really looks like it's just harassment.
Given that such a Kafkaesque nightmare is possible, I don't think it's an accident given what I've seen of New York. I think it's weaponized bureaucratic incompetence meant to punish people without needing to actually punish them in a way that you can actually fight against.
New York has been world renowned for corruption for centuries, partially related to its origin as New Amsterdam.
Given that such a Kafkaesque nightmare is possible, I don't think it's an accident given what I've seen of New York. I think it's weaponized bureaucratic incompetence meant to punish people without needing to actually punish them in a way that you can actually fight against.
New York has been world renowned for corruption for centuries, partially related to its origin as New Amsterdam.