• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Thoughts on the mainstreaming of anti-woke and what it means for near future cultural development

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
768
978
365
Something counter culture normally has some show or movie attached to it which makes it mainstream. That probably won't happen with the anti-woke because the woke control those platforms and this particular counter-culture exists heavily online. (And even it's online platforms continually try to suppress it.)

So you'll likely see heavily compromised versions trying to push their way through. Turning Point USA is trying to start some sort of celeb culture show. There's no way that doesn't completely contradict whatever values they have and it certainly won't reflect the counter-culture element that drives the whole reaction against wokeness/blue church/etc,

It's largely spread into other parts of culture via memes and how that ends up.. I don't know. We see the mainstream culture villianize the memes. (See the insane stupidity that is pepe the frog is racism mentality.) But that approach is merely preaching to the choir. Most people ignore that and just laugh at the memes. Comedy is subversive that way. I wonder how you get something funny like babylon bee out into establishment platforms.

Also, having thought about this whole situation, I've also begun to wonder if—in general—millenials are the first modern generation to reach the point of appearing "out of touch" before their preceding generation. I am guessing Gen X is the preceding gen there? All I know is that if you're as uptight and sheltered as being woke entails and you've had little critical thinking taught to you (a major loss in public education which millenials are the first to go through) then you'll likely not get the counter-culture or purposefully try to not "get it". Gen X may be more likely to get it, though I could be wrong about that.
 
Oct 15, 2019
96
92
190
New York
Something counter culture normally has some show or movie attached to it which makes it mainstream. That probably won't happen with the anti-woke because the woke control those platforms and this particular counter-culture exists heavily online. (And even it's online platforms continually try to suppress it.)

So you'll likely see heavily compromised versions trying to push their way through. Turning Point USA is trying to start some sort of celeb culture show. There's no way that doesn't completely contradict whatever values they have and it certainly won't reflect the counter-culture element that drives the whole reaction against wokeness/blue church/etc,

It's largely spread into other parts of culture via memes and how that ends up.. I don't know. We see the mainstream culture villianize the memes. (See the insane stupidity that is pepe the frog is racism mentality.) But that approach is merely preaching to the choir. Most people ignore that and just laugh at the memes. Comedy is subversive that way. I wonder how you get something funny like babylon bee out into establishment platforms.

Also, having thought about this whole situation, I've also begun to wonder if—in general—millenials are the first modern generation to reach the point of appearing "out of touch" before their preceding generation. I am guessing Gen X is the preceding gen there? All I know is that if you're as uptight and sheltered as being woke entails and you've had little critical thinking taught to you (a major loss in public education which millenials are the first to go through) then you'll likely not get the counter-culture or purposefully try to not "get it". Gen X may be more likely to get it, though I could be wrong about that.
I'd argue that the reason Gen X doesnt seem out of touch is that it's culture is relatively moderate as far as partisan politics goes. Sure it's dominated by consumerism and excess, but the counter culture at its core was essentially "Fuck off hippies, you're never going to tear down the system, so you should try to exploit it to work for you." At its core, that's an ideal that lines up well with the concept of capitalism. So, as long as capitalism remains core to the American identity, their views are going to roughly align with the youths. Millennials are another more radical generation, along the lines of the Boomers or Interbellum Generation. My pet theory is that generations like this are caused by periods of excess followed by unpopular action. Intebellum had the roaring 20s crash into the great depression. Boomers had the post WWII prosperity into the Vietnam War. And I think Millennials are a result of the DotCom bubble crashing into the war on terror. This kind of perceived failure leads to the kind of revolutionary thinking where the youth sees the best option as tearing it all down. We'll rebound as Gen Z tells them to fuck off.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
768
978
365
I'd argue that the reason Gen X doesnt seem out of touch is that it's culture is relatively moderate as far as partisan politics goes. Sure it's dominated by consumerism and excess, but the counter culture at its core was essentially "Fuck off hippies, you're never going to tear down the system, so you should try to exploit it to work for you." At its core, that's an ideal that lines up well with the concept of capitalism. So, as long as capitalism remains core to the American identity, their views are going to roughly align with the youths. Millennials are another more radical generation, along the lines of the Boomers or Interbellum Generation. My pet theory is that generations like this are caused by periods of excess followed by unpopular action. Intebellum had the roaring 20s crash into the great depression. Boomers had the post WWII prosperity into the Vietnam War. And I think Millennials are a result of the DotCom bubble crashing into the war on terror. This kind of perceived failure leads to the kind of revolutionary thinking where the youth sees the best option as tearing it all down. We'll rebound as Gen Z tells them to fuck off.
That's not entirely the attitude of Gen X. That was an 80s attitude, but Gen X certainly had a cynical and ironic theme as well. It also had a very anti-commercialism twinge to it. That did follow the excess of the 80s and the optimism excess of the hippies. Mostly, I think Gen X never tried to do much once it hit the 30-50 age range. There is wokeness within the generation but also cynicism towards it. At this point, Gen X is sort of a milieu. Think I saw Eric Weinstein talk about this once, how Gen X never really did anything and left the table to the following generation which went full woke.
 
Oct 26, 2018
7,801
7,257
515
Enter Linkedin and you'll find that the corporate world is INUNDATED with this shit.
I agree in terms of the news feed and people patting each other on the back with suck up replies.

But every company Ive work at (every place I've worked at are large corporations) doesn't act this way when actually hiring people.

Out of the 100s (maybe even 1,000+) people I've seen or worked with, I've never seen one person with stupidly dyed hair, tons of earrings or any weird shit. For the people that do have lots of tattoos, they wear long sleeve shirts and cover up. Everyone acts pretty professional. Maybe at home they act weird, but not at work.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lock2k

Durask

Member
Feb 6, 2012
1,869
670
715
I don't know at this point the media and the academia are permeated with wokeness. I am not sure the trend can be reversed.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,256
2,200
565
Another point, it's been proven that better guaranteed health of kids (drop in infant mortality) reduces birth rates, which makes sense, if you think that parents will have more kids if they consider the risk of death of any of their children to be higher. This surely is an argument for a good system of public health? Withdrawing welfare and creating penury may have an opposite effect of actually increasing the number of kids being born.
It is not proven by any means. In fact reason why people don't have kids in 1st world is actually connected to pension system.

If you look at people in middle ages which were rich they had often times MORE children than poor people because rich people were able to get official wife and concubines. So the idea that wealth or healthcare is prime factor was always wrong.

To understand why pension system is the cause you need to first answer fundamental question:

" Why people have kids ? "

This is now much more muddy to answer but let us go back 100 years ago:

- kids are the only way to survive your old age. If you don't have kids you starve to death if you are sick or unable to work anymore.
- kid after 5-6 years can already help parents and with just 2-3 more years already can work with parents providing more and more work as kid grows. So big family means that more wealth can be generated.

So kids were VALUABLE ECONOMICAL ASSET to family. The best way poor family could improve their life was to create children.

Now let us put that to what socialism did in last 100 years:

- pension system removes need for kids when you get old.
- kids are barred from work and parents can't use their labor until they are effectively ready to leave house.

Kids simply lost their economical value to family. But that is not where it is ending.

- kids became property of state not their parents. Parents can be punished if they don't do with kids what state wants (like case of forced education)
- due to above parents have pressure to meet demands of society in how they rise their children. And if by chance something happens to kid parents are responsible with their heads.

So not only their economical value to family was destroyed but also rising child became something negative, set of rules you need to follow or government will fuck you up.

This is the reason why kids aren't born in 1st world countries. Because socialism made children who were always benefit to family into disaster that can backfire on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brazen

Roni

Member
Aug 13, 2015
1,910
755
670
28
São Paulo, Brazil
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zenspider
Mar 18, 2018
2,278
1,803
385
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
While it is important to study things and have alternative perspectives, it does not mean they are right. It just means you cannot easily dismiss their input as a variable into the human condition.

It is an achedemic behavior that belongs in higher learning. It does not belong outside that because it moves through people like a religion.
 

HE1NZ

Member
Apr 9, 2019
288
357
380
Conservatism has nothing to do with fascism (or national socialism) so you can relax.
 
Dec 25, 2018
2,634
2,254
715
Manchester, England
I think the OP is trying to say thay we are going to swing back into the Individualism of "I will ignore people who are easily offended" and are desensitized when genuine people are hurt by that Individuals opinons, right or wrong.

We have idiots who get offended at everything, but then we have people who can't sympathise with others and only care for themselves, which I think is going to happen as the years go by.

A wild west of sorts where your actions and opinions/facts are true to yourself even if someone else points out how unfair that is, but they don't care.

Non-accountability seems to be the name of the game these days where responsibilities are shifted or ignored (not just the Far left but the Right as well). We need dialogue without the shit flinging as we seem to call out SJWs but now and again they have a few valid points where the world can seem uncaring on the outside looking in.

On their side, they should understand that a meaning behind an insult isn't always malicious, and the so called "Anti-Woke" need to understand that they can't always be stubborn and refuse to take another point of view and insult just to annoy others. Respect goes both ways.

Regarding Local Politics:

I am anti-Tory myself and it isn't because of their ideas or plans for the UK but because some of the Tories that lead the party are pretty damn awful people and are more or less not very sympathetic to the British people. However, most Voters think very short term (Brexit, Woke Culture) and don't think of the long repurcussions of how the Tory Party works. They are very against Disabled People (at least the important Tories who never lived the average poplaces life), they hate the idea of Welfare of those who need it and the Workers Rights are a shambles for those who work tirelessly but are ignored for the lazy but easily influential. Voters primarily think only of themselves, which mostly are valid...until they happen to be on the receiving end.

There needs to be a balance and Labour unfortunately took the privileged young folk who haven't been in the real world as their main voters and not the Young Folk who work because their parents can't or won't provide, or the middle class who are screwed over in other ways.

If Boris Johnson really can help a lot of British people then I will hold my hands up and say the Tories of now are better than any other ers of Tories, but until then I am sceptical of their policies after Brexit.

My experience of the Anti Woke is they do have apoint not to be offended by anything, but I feel that they have desensitized themselves from some really nasty stuff in the world that makes them appear not very relatable people and that is a sad way to see things in the world. Take the Good and Bad stuff and show your passion.

The Woke Culture need to see more positives in life and switch off from the bad stuff now and again as it will make you ill. You can call out injustices but there is always a peaceful way of doing this, and small things like "Cats are eaten by Chinese people" are not going to be solved by yourselves anytime soon unless you educate the Chinese populace about it, but that will take generations like for the South Koreans about Dogs.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: zenspider

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,885
19,684
855


There isn't a good thread for this, but I'll put it here.

This isn't really a condemnation of wokeness, but Beck puts together a really engrossing reminder of what makes America great. He gets into a lot of 'woke' issues, like the founding of America, and reads from the actual behind the scenes documents to give a far more in depth view of what our Founders were thinking and why certain decisions were made. He talks about Lincoln, the Statue of Liberty, Washington, Jesse Owens, baseball cards, and more... little anecdotes and historical footnotes that all come together in an excellent address.

Highly recommended. A strong antidote for the woke rewriting of history our current media is engaged in. Also, Beck owns [or at least has access to] some amazing historical artifacts [which he discusses].
 
Last edited:

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
I’m going to read this again and think about it more - I’m really getting interested in inter-generational thinking (can you define your gens, eg. Millennials 1980-1995, etc.?) ,but there’s one problem about your conclusion that I’ve been hitting against a lot lately:
being ‘anti-woke’ is in no way shape or form evidence of being rational or even reasonable.

There’s some dumb motherfuckers I have the misfortune of agreeing with about a lot of things.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vanitymachine

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
Post modernists found a way to destroy every value system they could find through the study of language. They're not wrong, but they also forgot that leaves most people drifting, since most won't be able to make sense of the world for themselves.

That's dangerous, because what that shows is that people will double down and defend their world abstraction.

Even if it's irrational to do so.
I love this look at it. It’s like the deconstruction sub-routine in Postmodernism went sub-atomic and are attacking the most fundamental pieces with which to rebuild with.

I’m also glad to see someone not get triggered by the word ‘postmodernism’ and reflexively regurgitating a Jordan Peterson talking point. Postmodernism did a lot of good work to eat the corrosion on our institutions, but we don’t know how to stop it from getting at the foundation.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Roni

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
It is not proven by any means. In fact reason why people don't have kids in 1st world is actually connected to pension system.

If you look at people in middle ages which were rich they had often times MORE children than poor people because rich people were able to get official wife and concubines. So the idea that wealth or healthcare is prime factor was always wrong.

To understand why pension system is the cause you need to first answer fundamental question:

" Why people have kids ? "

This is now much more muddy to answer but let us go back 100 years ago:

- kids are the only way to survive your old age. If you don't have kids you starve to death if you are sick or unable to work anymore.
- kid after 5-6 years can already help parents and with just 2-3 more years already can work with parents providing more and more work as kid grows. So big family means that more wealth can be generated.

So kids were VALUABLE ECONOMICAL ASSET to family. The best way poor family could improve their life was to create children.

Now let us put that to what socialism did in last 100 years:

- pension system removes need for kids when you get old.
- kids are barred from work and parents can't use their labor until they are effectively ready to leave house.

Kids simply lost their economical value to family. But that is not where it is ending.

- kids became property of state not their parents. Parents can be punished if they don't do with kids what state wants (like case of forced education)
- due to above parents have pressure to meet demands of society in how they rise their children. And if by chance something happens to kid parents are responsible with their heads.

So not only their economical value to family was destroyed but also rising child became something negative, set of rules you need to follow or government will fuck you up.

This is the reason why kids aren't born in 1st world countries. Because socialism made children who were always benefit to family into disaster that can backfire on you.
This is an really interesting idea looking at systemic incentives ‘nudging’ group behavior, but it’s way too narrow to be the reason.
I mean just easy pickings, access to birth control likely has a lot more to do with it than pensions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

accel

Member
Sep 11, 2015
897
395
520
Bankrupting Hollywood should be one of the main goals
One more goal should be reminding the Internet giants - who got as big as they are due to the protections from the law predicated on them being neutral carriers - that they have to be neutral, and adding means to monitor that. Google / Youtube / others for some reason think that they are in a position to shape the future in terms of politics - they have to be slapped across the head, and split if needed, because no, they are not.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
Bankrupting Hollywood should be one of the main goals

Get Woke Go Broke meme is a powerful tool

- Terminator
- Charlies Angels
- Star Wars
I’m no fan of woke culture, but I disagree. We’re already facing Disneyfication from the top, we shouldn’t be fighting back with 2-bit low-res memes. Anti-woke is just woke by inference: you don’t change the conversation.

Though I doubt we’ll get it, the struggle should be for more sophistication and higher resolution.

Film has enough bandwidth to be capable of transmitting multi-dimensional thoughts, feelings, multiple perspectives, layers of subtlety above and below the bombast. The industry does not.

In analogy: the Disney model is not concerned with health or nutrition, but with palatability and shelf-life. Here, we, the consumer, should not be asking for vanilla over chocolate - and certainly not a swirl! - but for more substantial, satiating meals.
Eat your greens, finish your plate, and don’t spoil your appetite on junk - that is the mimetic remedy of ‘woke/anti-woke’.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,900
40,569
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I’m no fan of woke culture, but I disagree. We’re already facing Disneyfication from the top, we shouldn’t be fighting back with 2-bit low-res memes. Anti-woke is just woke by inference: you don’t change the conversation.

Though I doubt we’ll get it, the struggle should be for more sophistication and higher resolution.

Film has enough bandwidth to be capable of transmitting multi-dimensional thoughts, feelings, multiple perspectives, layers of subtlety above and below the bombast. The industry does not.

In analogy: the Disney model is not concerned with health or nutrition, but with palatability and shelf-life. Here, we, the consumer, should not be asking for vanilla over chocolate - and certainly not a swirl! - but for more substantial, satiating meals.
Eat your greens, finish your plate, and don’t spoil your appetite on junk - that is the mimetic remedy of ‘woke/anti-woke’.
Brilliantly put.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,256
2,200
565
This is an really interesting idea looking at systemic incentives ‘nudging’ group behavior, but it’s way too narrow to be the reason.
I mean just easy pickings, access to birth control likely has a lot more to do with it than pensions.
Comeone now. People knew how to prevent pregnancy since forever. Sure they didn't have sure ways like we do now but if someone didn't want to get pregnant they didn't. There more of accidents but people knew the risk.

Why we know this ? Because families had 5-6 children instead of 22 or 30. If no one back then knew how pregnancy works then women would be non stop pregnant which clearly was not the case.

What birth control changed was that people were able to have sex outside of marriage.
 

jchap

Member
Jun 12, 2010
5,254
10
685
People don't like being called a racist for every little ideology which doesn't conform with the approved agenda. The anonymity of the voting booth allows them to voice their displeasure without scorn. I do believe this plays a small role in today's political landscape.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
Comeone now. People knew how to prevent pregnancy since forever. Sure they didn't have sure ways like we do now but if someone didn't want to get pregnant they didn't. There more of accidents but people knew the risk.

Why we know this ? Because families had 5-6 children instead of 22 or 30. If no one back then knew how pregnancy works then women would be non stop pregnant which clearly was not the case.

What birth control changed was that people were able to have sex outside of marriage.
I don’t want to waste time rebutting without understanding your leap in logic: if people knew how to prevent pregnancy “since forever”, then what is exactly is the efficacy in birth control? Why did it change extra-marital sex norms?
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,256
2,200
565
if people knew how to prevent pregnancy “since forever”, then what is exactly is the efficacy in birth control? Why did it change extra-marital sex norms?
The efficiency of birth control is in 100% sureness. Secondly condoms only exist for a short while. Go ask you mother or grandmother about birth control and they will explain you easily how they did it.

It changed extra marital sex norms because you had 100% sureness that you won't conceive out of marriage child. Single mothers had it very rough to find marriageable partner. It changed a lot today but back then it was huge thing.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
The efficiency of birth control is in 100% sureness. Secondly condoms only exist for a short while. Go ask you mother or grandmother about birth control and they will explain you easily how they did it.

It changed extra marital sex norms because you had 100% sureness that you won't conceive out of marriage child. Single mothers had it very rough to find marriageable partner. It changed a lot today but back then it was huge thing.
Grandma swears she only had sex the times, but point taken.
You appreciate the seismic culture shift of modern birth control, and you still think it’s pensions that account for the lower birth rate in the first world?

More basically, who thinks about having children as a retirement plan? The people having the sex sure don’t.

Even more basically, people were having plenty of babies before there were jobs, let alone pensions.

Again, it’s a super interesting way to look at systemic influence on behavior today, but if we we’re playing Family Feud, I don’t think “socialism”, as you call it, even makes the board for reasons people in the first world don’t have as many children.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,256
2,200
565
More basically, who thinks about having children as a retirement plan? The people having the sex sure don’t.
I think this is the fundamental question you need answer for. Which also explains earlier statement how birth control is supposedly main reason why people don't have kids.

Ok let us imagine you live in world where socialism didn't take over. You are 20, there is no social security net, there is no pension and only way you can get something for free is your own family and good neighbors.

You are thinking about your situation.
How do you secure yourself for next week, month, year, decade and rest of life.

When you get to old age reasoning you quickly came up with kids. Because there isn't any other way to do it unless you are ultra rich to have servants. Because if you get sick at any point which would require assistance you are going to die.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,238
455
I think this is the fundamental question you need answer for. Which also explains earlier statement how birth control is supposedly main reason why people don't have kids.

Ok let us imagine you live in world where socialism didn't take over. You are 20, there is no social security net, there is no pension and only way you can get something for free is your own family and good neighbors.

You are thinking about your situation.
How do you secure yourself for next week, month, year, decade and rest of life.

When you get to old age reasoning you quickly came up with kids. Because there isn't any other way to do it unless you are ultra rich to have servants. Because if you get sick at any point which would require assistance you are going to die.
I am answering that for myself. I am interested in what your saying, but I’d like you to acknowledge that there are reasons more fundamental.

Maybe the better way to put it: family planning can be described as shifting the imperative to reproduce from the biological layer into the social layer - there is no reasoning about having children until there is true, non-superstitious choice in the matter.

If we can start there, and build up to your idea, I think we can have an interesting conversation about the membrane between society and biology.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
11,885
19,684
855

This popped up in my daily youtube radicalization diet.

Anyway, she confronts a lot of this general issue head on. We are seeing all sorts of... clown world, for lack of a better term, occurring across the board, and being told if we notice, we are [insert awful term]. Yet the official narrative makes no sense either, and is often blatantly contradictory [i can explain why this is so, it has to do with memetics and i can go deeper if someone wants].

And so we are left with no avenue to take. One door is shut because it's clear contradictory, anti-factual nonsense, and the other door has massive WARNING tape on it we are scared to open for fear of becoming something we are not and don't want to be. It's really interesting listening to someone talk openly about this, and i recommend watching it.

And as for my own personal advice as to all of the above, i recommend trusting in yourself, and giving strong voice to your beliefs. Do not let fear of condemnation shut you down, for intersectionalists are dirty dirty shame dealers. From little prods like 'not a good look' to full on cancel attempts, they seek to shout down anyone who doesn't sound like them. Fuck them. Fuck their stupidity and lies. I know what I am, and what I am not. I trust myself to be able to post about the latest church being set on fire in France and not suddenly becoming Islamaphobic, just as I know stating that a trans women who breaks skulls [plural] of actual women is not the 'bravest athlete in history' is not transphobic. Believe in yourself. Do your research. You might not like all the answers, but it's better than swallowing what you know are lies.
 
Last edited:

Scotty W

Member
Sep 29, 2019
149
126
220
One thing we need to realize about Woke culture is that it, too, is a reaction against something.

Personally, I am enjoying seeing this anti-woke mainstreaming, BUT what I am afraid of is this anti-woke reaction going too far... just like how the woke reaction went to far.

We should be very careful that this reaction does not become hatred. The goal is to steady the boat, not to tip it violently to the right. But this is difficult. I am so addicted to the clown world thread. I love the outrage. Do you? I don't think it is healthy.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Naibel

Shmunter

Member
Aug 25, 2018
2,165
3,279
475
One thing we need to realize about Woke culture is that it, too, is a reaction against something.

Personally, I am enjoying seeing this anti-woke mainstreaming, BUT what I am afraid of is this anti-woke reaction going too far... just like how the woke reaction went to far.

We should be very careful that this reaction does not become hatred. The goal is to steady the boat, not to tip it violently to the right. But this is difficult. I am so addicted to the clown world thread. I love the outrage. Do you? I don't think it is healthy.
Woke culture is fake. Gullible masses falling for click bait media working on the most base of human reactions, outrage. It’s a spiral that feeds itself.
 
Oct 15, 2019
96
92
190
New York
One thing we need to realize about Woke culture is that it, too, is a reaction against something.

Personally, I am enjoying seeing this anti-woke mainstreaming, BUT what I am afraid of is this anti-woke reaction going too far... just like how the woke reaction went to far.

We should be very careful that this reaction does not become hatred. The goal is to steady the boat, not to tip it violently to the right. But this is difficult. I am so addicted to the clown world thread. I love the outrage. Do you? I don't think it is healthy.
Honestly, it probably isn't. You need to constantly be aware of how your point of view in day to day life is being effected by all this. "When you stare into the abyss..." and all
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
19,900
40,569
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com

This popped up in my daily youtube radicalization diet.

Anyway, she confronts a lot of this general issue head on. We are seeing all sorts of... clown world, for lack of a better term, occurring across the board, and being told if we notice, we are [insert awful term]. Yet the official narrative makes no sense either, and is often blatantly contradictory [i can explain why this is so, it has to do with memetic and i can go deeper if someone wants].

And so we are left with no avenue to take. One door is shut because it's clear contradictory, anti-factual nonsense, and the other door has massive WARNING tape on it we are scared to open for fear of becoming something we are not and don't want to be. It's really interesting listening to someone talk openly about this, and i recommend watching it.

And as for my own personal advice as to all of the above, i recommend trusting in yourself, and giving strong voice to your beliefs. Do not let fear of condemnation shut you down, for intersectionalists are dirty dirty shame dealers. From little prods like 'not a good look' to full on cancel attempts, they seek to shout down anyone who doesn't sound like them. Fuck them. Fuck their stupidity and lies. I know what I am, and what I am not. I trust myself to be able to post about the latest church being set on fire in France and not suddenly becoming Islamaphobic, just as I know stating that a trans women who breaks skulls [plural] of actual women is not the 'bravest athlete in history' is not transphobic. Believe in yourself. Do your research. You might not like all the answers, but it's better than swallowing what you know are lies.
Yes, the choice between two doors is [cult] versus [reality].

 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist
Dec 15, 2011
6,137
14,808
1,090
I felt this thread to be the right place for the following interview and I didn't want to start a dedicated thread for it.

First things first:
It's The Sun. Famously infamous British tabloid rag.
It's an hour long.

It is, however, Andrew Doyle.
Andrew recently let it be known that he is the person behind the legendary Titania McGrath parody Twitter account.
He's also a stand-up comedian, co-author of another fictional legend: Jonathan Pie, runs Comedy Unleashed, is an ex-teacher, hoaxer, author and media & political commentator.
Whilst the interview questions are pretty basic, Andrew is given plenty of space to put his view across.


There's enough reasons for me to like Andrew Doyle already. But I found this interview really good.
Aside from confirming my own biases it shows exactly where Doyle is coming from and what he sees as solutions.
I think he comes across as sympathetic, relatable, affable and sincere. And I do hope that his stature grows. I could envision him becoming a person akin to Stephen Fry - a smart person that has the ability to make people laugh and make them think without making them feel threatened.
 
Mar 14, 2018
313
432
285
One thing we need to realize about Woke culture is that it, too, is a reaction against something.

Personally, I am enjoying seeing this anti-woke mainstreaming, BUT what I am afraid of is this anti-woke reaction going too far... just like how the woke reaction went to far.

We should be very careful that this reaction does not become hatred. The goal is to steady the boat, not to tip it violently to the right. But this is difficult. I am so addicted to the clown world thread. I love the outrage. Do you? I don't think it is healthy.
I get what you're saying, but I also find it frustrating that the most mainstream 'anti-woke' speech that's tolerated is basically saying "steady on old chaps, aren't you going a bit far?". Take this Laurence Fox who's doing the rounds in the UK. He's expressing anti-woke sentiments in the gentlest possible terms, and getting attacked even for that.

what we should really be saying is "these people are fucking insane. there's only two genders. white people aren't the devil.". just wholesale reject all of it.

It's an extremist movement and it deserves an extreme rejection
 

Plague Doctor

Formerly 'Demacabre'
Mar 23, 2015
2,123
1,532
590
Something to consider is that "anti-woke" does not automtically mean "conservative" or right wing economic and social values. It really means anti-authoritarian, opposing cultural totalitarians that want to control all narratives, and opposing the crony inbreeding of power against the masses.

I have the same vitriol to the woke crowd as I do for the religious right and the right wing moral police.

If your goal is to replace the woke cult/authoritarian left with a moral and religious right, fuck off.

I am not trading social justice zealots just to have others install moral justice zealots.
 
Last edited:

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,256
2,200
565
Correlation =/= causation.

Secondly You have Gabon which has almost the same schooling period as US and Macao which has lower and yet Gabon has 4 kids per woman and macao only 1. So your chart spread doesn't say anything.
 

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
259
410
310
The bell curve exists for a reason. It is not my goal or intention to make low income people stop having babies since statistically speaking, they will always exist. It's also not like these people don't have a purpose in life. Think of all the jobs that people who are geniuses don't have time to work. It's not realistic to expect every scientist or CEO to pickup a broomstick and start sweeping the streets for a living.

What my fear is when the average for national intelligence drops and that the proportion of people who can actually become a general surgeon or CEO fall into short supply, leading towards a downward spiral in society.
Been very busy of late but wanted to respond now that I've got a bit of time. I guess you're familiar with Nassim Taleb's criticisms of IQ? I find myself agreeing with his position mostly because I think IQ is intrinsically an immoral concept. Here's another study I saw today about how cognitive ability and locus of control play a smaller than expected role in labour market success than is taken as the case in most policy making.
What do you think the major factors are in a downward spiral in society? I'm guessing that they are low IQ people having more children. The problem I have with this is that there is no solution that doesn't lead to society becoming stupid and brutal as controlling childbirth at a state level in any way is always stupid, brutal and inhumane as it forces a state level view of some people as being intrinsically disposable. See China's one child policy, which would forcibly induce and then abort second children. This is why I think that the obsession with IQ is the anti-woke backlash's most dangerous aspect. It is dehumanising.

I do not fear PC backlash for this because what I believe in is the truth. How does anyone expect society to succeed or at least maintain 1st world standards if we don't have at least more smart people running around? Ground breaking inventions like the Car or Theory of Gravity would never have happened if there wasn't at least one turbo genius to put the idea forward and then similar like minded people who understand the usefulness of these concepts. This what I refer to when I rather society shift towards glorifying these ideas, and not promote welfare or a system that leads to an imbalance of smart to low income ratio.


Ask yourself why does poverty exist? The definition is one based around just how much wealth is actually concentrated in the majority population vs the 1%.
Believe it or not, Canadians and Japanese people are actually poorer than Americans by average, yet it has never crossed your mind that Canadians or Japanese people are sickly has it?



It's not welfare that stops poverty. If anything, it's just a band-aid for not addressing the real reasons why aren't most people working the most high paying jobs. Maybe some of it is justified (i.e someone who gets laid off at work and to avoid going into homelessness has to take up some form of welfare before he can find another job) but other times it's not (i.e someone who illegally lands in another country with the sole purpose of using up free public services with little intention to actually pay back into it).

In my opinion, welfare should only exist as an extreme last resort, that requires tons of backgrounds check, and should only be approved when there is some form of guarantee a person will go back to working vs just living off public assistance forever.
Another problem with the welfare/IQ matrix you're drawing together - a very smart person could have his job made obsolescent by technology. Doctors use machines to do surgery, and the machines are effectively being trained. It won't be long until surgical procedures are being done by machines at a scale and efficacy that will not be able to be contested by humans. The jobs that will be hardest to automate will be jobs like electrician and plumber and carpenter. So there'll be a period in which surgeons may find themselves benefitting less from the economy than electricians and plumbers, simply because their jobs have been automated.

Other very smart people could have their lives turned around by a tragedy of one kind or another and may need charity of some kind - and this for me I think is the kicker. I prefer charity over welfare. Charity is human driven. Before welfare in the U.K. there were things called Friendly Societies which were organised by people to support other people in their local area going through hard times. This is a much more humane approach to welfare in my opinion, as people feel ok about cheating the government but less ok about cheating their neighbours who are voluntarily coming together to support each other. In the UK at least, the social care crisis is the direct result of feminism and free market capitalism working hand in hand to destroy the family as the fundamental unit of society. I think people are recognising this more and more and this is why social conservatism combined with economic left policies (so called Blue Labour) is beginning to make serious inroads in culture. The breaking of Labour's red wall is the biggest sign of this - politics is downstream of culture, and it's changing fast.

Immigration acts as a filter. If you set the entrance requirement really high, then in return, you should be getting people into your country who are expected to work hard and contribute.
There are some exceptions though, like people who obviously cheat or fake their degrees to get inside. But those people should be deported for refusing to follow the law.

It would be easier to just refuse them at the border. Why take on the risk if you don't have to? That is what strict immigration/border control is all about. If you cannot control who is allowed inside your house, why call it a house in the first place?
I wasn't clear on the question of compulsory sterilisation - it seemed I was talking about it in the context of immigration controls, I was actually talking about people already within your borders. I find asking people what they would do with the people they disagree with or who that view as a problem very instructive - Project Veritas exposed some Bernie staffers saying Republicans would need to go to gulags for example. So again, to manage the IQ decline that you are so concerned about, what would you consider - for those already inside your borders, so without recourse to any immigration argument. Would you consider compulsory sterilisation? If not, what policies would you bring in to manage it or try to reverse it? Does it not disturb you that historically compulsory sterilisation has been a policy used to achieve your policy goals? And that it was effectively the central driving force of Aktion T4? Do alarm bells ever sound in your head about what your policy goals might entail (assuming that they are to take steps to reverse IQ decline)?

If someone had to be homeless in Japan or Brazil, guess which country most people would pick? Even if Japan has a homelessness problem, it's easy to see why it's mitigated. The rest of country is known for its safety and high economic status. Hell, I wouldn't mind sleeping on the streets of Tokyo if I'm waiting for my next job there. Some Japanese homeless people are even known to create their own jobs despite being in such a destitute position.


That was in the past. Japan was beaten into submission and are unlikely to wage war again. Otherwise, I wouldn't use those examples to judge modern Japanese society based on lawfullness.
Again, as a great test, ask any random person on the street which country would they consider less violent: Brazil or Japan? How could this be if one country didn't have a culture that practiced creating a safe and sound society compared to the other?
You're pretty forgiving of Japan's cultural past (and check out Samurai culture, it was wild) but not so much black people's - I've seen your argument that all groups go through difficulty and find a way to bounce back, and so groups that don't are inherently incapable. Can you give some concrete examples of this? I'm not convinced. It seems just a lazy shorthand way to disguise your sense of racial supremacy.

I would tell people those countries already exist. Brazil, Mexico, Dominican Republic have origins that are mixed race. If someone wants to go live in those countries, that's their choice.
That doesn't mean the entire world has to be like that. Japan clearly is a homogeneous nation. So are some European countries. If people believe those countries are doing worse than Brazil, I would be interested in seeing their argument.
Europe and Japan have inflicted great trauma on other countries. Both have a history of racial supremacy. Look at the history of the Congo - which on top of being brutalised by imperial power has become a resource bucket for the global economy and is managed by brutal warlords and mercenaries who are the sharp end of the supply chains that funnel coltan and cassisterite out of the country. The Congo is still living through the trauma of that time. The difference between defending the integrity of the indigenous people of country that has been the victim of empire (such as Poland) and the integrity of the indigenous people of a country that has imposed empire on others is an interesting one. There are plenty of innocents even in empires. Woke culture is essentially imperialism in reverse, the blowback in full swing. Stopping it could set the pendulum going the other way again.

I've always been a facts over feelings guy. In fact, while I associate myself with Conservatism, I still rather side with evidence regardless of who is in power.
If Trump said the moon is made of cheese with no evidence, i'm not going to defend him just because he's a Republican. But if a Democrat said something equally stupid, then my same standard applies.

If anyone follows my posting habits on Neogaf, you'll also know that I'm heavily against any echo chamber. I always want to listen to both sides, regardless if I actually agree or disagree with them. The only exception is when it comes to death threats or use of physical violence. It's only in scenarios of complete self defense do I think the use of force is necessary.
Hopefully I've given you some interesting viewpoints to think about :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vanitymachine

Vow

Member
Dec 19, 2018
259
410
310
I get what you're saying, but I also find it frustrating that the most mainstream 'anti-woke' speech that's tolerated is basically saying "steady on old chaps, aren't you going a bit far?". Take this Laurence Fox who's doing the rounds in the UK. He's expressing anti-woke sentiments in the gentlest possible terms, and getting attacked even for that.

what we should really be saying is "these people are fucking insane. there's only two genders. white people aren't the devil.". just wholesale reject all of it.

It's an extremist movement and it deserves an extreme rejection
The Laurence Fox stuff in the UK happened after I made this thread and definitely struck me as another bellwether moment. I really hope that some kind of sensible consensus is emerging. At the moment I feel things are going ok actually. I feel I trust the British public at large to be fairly sensible, and having just united the country at the ballot box will now start to form around a new anti-woke, socially conservative but straight talking and reasonable consensus.

 

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,677
8,168
1,025
Brampton, Ontario
Been very busy of late but wanted to respond now that I've got a bit of time. I guess you're familiar with Nassim Taleb's criticisms of IQ? I find myself agreeing with his position mostly because I think IQ is intrinsically an immoral concept. Here's another study I saw today about how cognitive ability and locus of control play a smaller than expected role in labour market success than is taken as the case in most policy making.
I have studies that just as equally advocate that IQ differences does have a real correlation with life outcomes.
I do not find the concept immoral, anymore than a job asking you to do a math test, and the person who scores the highest is placed at higher consideration.
There's always going to be stratification in society. The higher up you go in the workforce, the higher the requirements and expectations come with it.
That does not mean that every person who flips burgers or scrubs toilets does not have potential to be a genius, but when you set the bar low for these jobs that even a 9 year old could apply for them and still function well, then you're going to attract all sorts of people who might not actually think of pursuing a career that is cognitively more demanding.

What do you think the major factors are in a downward spiral in society? I'm guessing that they are low IQ people having more children. The problem I have with this is that there is no solution that doesn't lead to society becoming stupid and brutal as controlling childbirth at a state level in any way is always stupid, brutal and inhumane as it forces a state level view of some people as being intrinsically disposable. See China's one child policy, which would forcibly induce and then abort second children. This is why I think that the obsession with IQ is the anti-woke backlash's most dangerous aspect. It is dehumanising.
That's not an example of controlling for IQ. I'm pretty sure the state aborts children because they already have a billion people, but also because they have a culture that values men more (in which case, more girl babies are killed since they can't be used as much in physical labor as men can).

When looking at Western societies, before mass immigration there is no reason to assume they were just "naturally" going to drop in IQ. I think even the worst studies done in Norway or Australia showed that in 10 years, their IQ only dropped by about 3 points? That's not quite epidemic levels. But if the average went from say 100 to 80, then I consider that an emergency.

Another problem with the welfare/IQ matrix you're drawing together - a very smart person could have his job made obsolescent by technology. Doctors use machines to do surgery, and the machines are effectively being trained. It won't be long until surgical procedures are being done by machines at a scale and efficacy that will not be able to be contested by humans. The jobs that will be hardest to automate will be jobs like electrician and plumber and carpenter. So there'll be a period in which surgeons may find themselves benefitting less from the economy than electricians and plumbers, simply because their jobs have been automated.
If you're smart and your job gets automated, why wouldn't you move on to the next available thing? Your brain doesn't stop working just because there's a robot out there that can do a task that once required humans too. Either find another job in the medical field, or run your own private clinic that makes said of machines that did your old job.

Other very smart people could have their lives turned around by a tragedy of one kind or another and may need charity of some kind - and this for me I think is the kicker. I prefer charity over welfare. Charity is human driven. Before welfare in the U.K. there were things called Friendly Societies which were organised by people to support other people in their local area going through hard times. This is a much more humane approach to welfare in my opinion, as people feel ok about cheating the government but less ok about cheating their neighbours who are voluntarily coming together to support each other. In the UK at least, the social care crisis is the direct result of feminism and free market capitalism working hand in hand to destroy the family as the fundamental unit of society. I think people are recognising this more and more and this is why social conservatism combined with economic left policies (so called Blue Labour) is beginning to make serious inroads in culture. The breaking of Labour's red wall is the biggest sign of this - politics is downstream of culture, and it's changing fast.
I support charity. I also think it's more effective than welfare. Rather than the government trying to help everyone without actually understanding everyones individual needs, let communities raise their own wealthy leaders who can give back to those closer to them.


I wasn't clear on the question of compulsory sterilisation - it seemed I was talking about it in the context of immigration controls, I was actually talking about people already within your borders. I find asking people what they would do with the people they disagree with or who that view as a problem very instructive - Project Veritas exposed some Bernie staffers saying Republicans would need to go to gulags for example. So again, to manage the IQ decline that you are so concerned about, what would you consider - for those already inside your borders, so without recourse to any immigration argument. Would you consider compulsory sterilisation? If not, what policies would you bring in to manage it or try to reverse it? Does it not disturb you that historically compulsory sterilisation has been a policy used to achieve your policy goals? And that it was effectively the central driving force of Aktion T4? Do alarm bells ever sound in your head about what your policy goals might entail (assuming that they are to take steps to reverse IQ decline)?
The danger only lies if they're the majority or not. I mentioned in the first paragraph that statistically speaking, low IQ groups will always show up in the bell curve. But they should be treated as a rarity just as you have those on the opposite side that are geniuses but are also in rare numbers.

A nation's IQ should not [rapidly] decline unless you decide to open the borders or instigate dysgenic policies like welfare in which case, I stated my point is to avoid either scenarios in the first place.

You're pretty forgiving of Japan's cultural past (and check out Samurai culture, it was wild) but not so much black people's - I've seen your argument that all groups go through difficulty and find a way to bounce back, and so groups that don't are inherently incapable. Can you give some concrete examples of this? I'm not convinced. It seems just a lazy shorthand way to disguise your sense of racial supremacy.
Two World Wars. The U.S Civil War. The Islamic conquests of Iberia. The Mongol invasions. The collapse of the Roman Empire. The Boer Wars. Napoleons invasions of Europe. The Wall Street Market crash. Multiple European or even Asian famines...

It's very well documented that there have been several tragedies or destabilizing events throughout human history and yet countries have still found ways to rebound from them. Whether or not you want to attribute this to "race", the facts are open for anyone to read.

The Congo is still living through the trauma of that time. The difference between defending the integrity of the indigenous people of country that has been the victim of empire (such as Poland) and the integrity of the indigenous people of a country that has imposed empire on others is an interesting one. There are plenty of innocents even in empires. Woke culture is essentially imperialism in reverse, the blowback in full swing. Stopping it could set the pendulum going the other way again.
My question for you is how do you put an expiration date on "trauma"? And why is that other countries that had their own "trauma" still managed to recover in shorter amount of time?
The USA saw its nation ripped in half back in the 1860s and yet after the war, how many countries were arguably that much better off than it? Or how come the USA in all its history has always been a world player instead of being a developing nation?

I do not deny that places like Africa have their own problems that colonization could be one symptom that held them back. What I question is why try and isolate such cases to try and say all their problems come from colonization and that it's impossible to criticize there have been other nations from around the same time that are now doing better?

I'm fairly sure you've heard of South Africa or Rhodesia. Both were countries that existed on the same continent as Congo was yet there was still a massive difference in quality of life. No one also wants to talk about that both countries also declared independence and came under siege internationally, so it's not like the world was giving them a reason to thrive. But despite the wars and sanctions, they did not stop being economically and technologically prosperous countries until they were forced to collapse. What excuse is for that?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hariseldon

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
9,258
13,149
695
38
soon people will grow weary of nihilism and aimless postmodernism. moral relativism has destroyed all our heroes. it has left us aimless and purposeless. corporate media is hollow and meaningless. it may take some time, but people will, voluntarily, rediscover the traditions that have stood the test of time for a reason.

i truly believe a religious rebirth is coming. people are not satisfied with consumerism. how can they be? it is a worldly pursuit. the modern myths are pale violent mindless copies of the ancient stories that gave moral and philosophical lessons. they have left our population culturally illiterate. there is nothing aside from self definition and self glorification to live for. it is material obsession.

all the woke shit, it is worldly too, it is all ego based. there are real fights for justice but what is sold as social justice is not it. it is desperately concerned with narratives, which are these flimsy things that constantly change and have no meaning. because they have rejected the true narrative of life. they have rejected the reality of the glory of being. they cannot see grace because they only focus on the suffering. they demand it.

you can see the rot at the heart of it all, just look at one of the modern movies, mere shells of the dreams and legends of yesteryear. even the most crass and commercial works from the past look like sublime celebrations of God compared to our current tripe. the basic foundations of life have been destroyed; family, children, gender, etc. good and evil are just points of view, ask a suicidal Luke Skywalker.

yet the nihilism will fade because it offers nothing for the future. darkness cannot cover light. light will always shine through the darkness.
 
Last edited:

Scotty W

Member
Sep 29, 2019
149
126
220
It's an extremist movement and it deserves an extreme rejection
I can only partly agree with this.

Let's say my best friend tells me that he wants to try heroin. What is the best response? A firm no and commitment to dialogue, or telling him that he is fucking idiot and he is worthless if the does that?

Now, I am not trying to caricature your position, but I think that you will agree that the latter option will likely alienate my friend and destroy the friendship. If we take the former option, even if my friend decides to do it, at least we are in a position to talk him back to reality.

Even though we might psychologically reject extremely something that a friend or opponent does, the way that we show that rejection should not, in my opinion, necessarily be extreme. Democracy relies on this principle.
 

Leshita

Member
Jun 6, 2004
2,896
69
1,510
Vancouver, BC
The problem is not woke, it is the ego of some individuals using "woke" to attack or get revenge on others.
Also the generalization of 'evil' onto White men, but actually the problem is the human ego itself... so ya let's all meditate and do some yoga. lol

EDIT: Anything can become bad once it becomes a superficial badge of honour... instead of your actual character defining you. It is like me as a Canadian and using my nationality as a badge of honour in third world countries. But here it is... "woke" SJW badge of honour. Tribalism "my team is good you are evil" monkey brain business.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Vanitymachine