Split Thread: "White Supremacist" really has no meaning anymore.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

"We've successfully forced a subset of the population into abject poverty by bombing their towns, and denying them jobs. That means it's their fault they're now poor, but we can't help them now because white people might feel bad. Also it's woke, and thus a bad thing."

Whatever you do, don't mention Asians. Especially the children of recent Asian immigrants who worked menial jobs and can bearly speak English. It's like Kryptonite to the Woke.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Donal

Ya, that is crap. I just plugged "woke" into Google and got this in the snippet on the sidebar



Also, after the traditional definition of "past tense of wake" you get the Merriam-Webster entry



So ya, you're full of it

That’s the historical definition. No one uses the term that way anymore. Those who pretend otherwise, such as you, are the ones who are “full of it.”

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by jt512

That’s the historical definition. No one uses the term that way anymore.

Funnily enough, this seems to be the same complaint made in the split thread OP.

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

Thank you for illustrating precisely the disingenuous that makes it futile to discuss this topic on this forum.

You don't think the person refusing to clarify is the one being disingenuous?

If you don't want to debate it here, don't bring it up and run away like a coward and then claim it's everyone else's fault. Just don't bring it up in the first place.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Trausti

I did provide examples: rejection of objective reality; anti-impirical. It's very much like a religion in that way. Belief is far more important than evidence. And the heretics and apostates are ritually smitted.

That's pretty broad and can apply to a lot of things. What about book bans? Is that not woke too? What about race realists who believe in segregation. Woke?

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Venom

That's pretty broad and can apply to a lot of things. What about book bans? Is that not woke too? What about race realists who believe in segregation. Woke?

Sure. For the Woke, race is the most important aspect of any person. Indeed, everyone should be prejudged by their race.

College Segregating Graduation Ceremonies by Race Sparks Anger

[jt512]

I think the person being disingenuous is the liar I quoted.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Venom

That's pretty broad and can apply to a lot of things. What about book bans? Is that not woke too? What about race realists who believe in segregation. Woke?

People who use the term “race realist” are inevitably woke.

[Shalamar]

Originally Posted by jt512

I think the person being disingenuous is the liar I quoted.

No lies. I merely defined 'woke' as racists would, since the racists in this thread refuse to define it.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Sure. For the Woke, race is the most important aspect of any person. Indeed, everyone should be prejudged by their race.

College Segregating Graduation Ceremonies by Race Sparks Anger

Again I fail to see how "woke" is a helpful descriptor here. Is this social justice gone too far? Maybe. I've also heard basic mental health advocacy called "woke" too. And basic empathy...

[Venom]

Originally Posted by jt512

People who use the term “race realist” are inevitably woke.

I'm only calling them what they call themselves. What term would you rather use for their philosophy?

[gnome]

Originally Posted by jt512

I think the person being disingenuous is the liar I quoted.

And yet you could shut down this silly diversion by defining your usage of your terms clearly... like the professional researcher/publisher you claim to be.

I've no reason to think otherwise but I feel like you're leaving your professionalism at the door, and complaining when the conversation is derailed.

You could shut down everyone's meta-speculation about what the word might mean to you with a single post.

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

No lies. I merely defined 'woke' as racists would, since the racists in this thread refuse to define it.

Accusation of racism is yet another lie. You just can’t help it, apparently.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Venom

Again I fail to see how "woke" is a helpful descriptor here. Is this social justice gone too far? Maybe. I've also heard basic mental health advocacy called "woke" too. And basic empathy...

I view Woke as a rejection of the pre-Obama liberal values. As Bill Maher recently put it,

Quote:

"The woke believe race is first and foremost the thing you should always see everywhere, which I find interesting because that used to be the position of the Ku Klux Klan, that we see race first and foremost everywhere. So, again, you can have that position, but don’t say that’s a liberal position. You’re doing something very different."

[jt512]

Originally Posted by Venom

I'm only calling them what they call themselves. What term would you rather use for their philosophy?

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

Race is not philosophy. It is biology. Species migrate and diverge. The resulting phenotypic groups are called races (not just in humans).

[dirtywick]

speaking of words that don't mean anything anymore

well, one difference isn't i won't opine the days when the woke were really woke like the white supremacists do

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

Race is not philosophy. It is biology. Species migrate and diverge. Full stop.

any thoughts on black people?

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

Race is not philosophy. It is biology. Species migrate and diverge. Full stop.

Race, or population groups, certainly exist. Othewise, evolution and natural selection are wrong. While this helps explain group differences, no person should be advantaged or disadvantaged because of their race.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Trausti

I view Woke as a rejection of the pre-Obama liberal values. As Bill Maher recently put it,

oh brother. Yes we know "the real racists" are the people who mention race. I think acknowledging race and racism is just being politically incorrect, what the "anti-woke" folks often profess to live by.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by Venom

oh brother. Yes we know "the real racists" are the people who mention race. I think acknowledging race and racism is just being politically incorrect, what the "anti-woke" folks often profess to live by.

If you judge someone first and foremost by their race, what are you?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

Race is not philosophy. It is biology. Species migrate and diverge. The resulting phenotypic groups are called races (not just in humans).

We're talking about race realism. I don't see what is particularly objectionable about the term. There are more colorful, less PC things we can call the proponents of such systems. But in an academic setting I don't see the issue. Many self described capital "C" Conservatives, opponents of the Enlightenment and liberalism seem perfectly fine speaking on race and culture.

So are they "woke" too or is this just reserved for soft-hearted libs?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Trausti

If you judge someone first and foremost by their race, what are you?

Of course it'd be awkward at the very least. But I'm not going to pretend it isn't ubiquitous and not a part of being human.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Trausti

What do you mean by "who"? A child born today inherits original sin? That sort of thing?

Answer the ******* question and stop doing the bit.

[Trausti]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Answer the ******* question and stop doing the bit.

Do clarify. The active discrimination today is against White and Asian males. There was a recent Supreme Court case on it.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by jt512

That’s the historical definition. No one uses the term that way anymore.

"Historical" dates back 2 whole years before the nutbars in the right wing media started telling their sheep that "woke is bad" without ever telling them what woke meant.

No one other than racists and idiot propaganda victims use your new definition for anything.

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

Race is not a biological concept. No scientific body accepts it as one and claims that it is deny basic understanding of human genetics.

Originally Posted by jt512

Race is not philosophy. It is biology. Species migrate and diverge. The resulting phenotypic groups are called races (not just in humans).

Race is not species, and even if it was there is one and only one human species alive on the planet today.

Race is not sub-species, and even if it were there is one and only one human subspecies alive on the planet today

There is no taxonomical ranking called "race", the term isn't used in biology expect in rare instance where racists use it for no particular reason other than to try and legitimize it. Race has some recognized status as an ethnocultural grouping. IOW you could, if you wanted, use it to differentiate Swedish from Finnish or Finnish from Russian, but even there most people don't see the need for a term at all they just say they are comparing Swedes and Finns

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve never seen the term used by anyone other than those who deny that race is a legitimate biological concept.

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-03637-006

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by Trausti

Race, or population groups, certainly exist. Othewise, evolution and natural selection are wrong. While this helps explain group differences, no person should be advantaged or disadvantaged because of their race.

No credible scientist uses race as a synonym for population group.

Again, there is some acceptance for the term in the context of ethnocultural groups, but these are as more about cultural identity then any meaningful biological difference. The traditionally defined "races" don't make ANY sense in terms of population groups from a genetic perspective.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

If Gerbner's thesis is correct, the invention of whiteness was contingent upon existing religious oppression rather than irrelevant thereto, at least in North America.

This is the fallacy of relevance in question. The contingencies of a phenomenon are not the phenomenon.

Quote:

Among those affirming the validity of the categorization, yes, but merely having the idea of race doesn't imply the idea of whiteness.

Why does that matter? I wasn't answering a question about "whiteness".

Quote:

I don't think that Middleton's coinage of "white people" settles the question of when whiteness began to be seen as essential rather than incidental (i.e. just another adjective like green for eye color) but the author of the article also affirms that "the colour line was already beginning to harden" by 1613, so presumably there is more evidence to be had on point.

I'm not really interested in chasing down transitional fossils. The concept was in full swing by the 17th century and was not particularly an American innovation. Everyone involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade had need of justification.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This is the fallacy of relevance in question. The contingencies of a phenomenon are not the phenomenon.

If a given phenomenon grew out of an earlier phenomenon then we cannot claim to understand it without understanding both.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I wasn't answering a question about "whiteness".

Which specific question did you think you were answering?

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

I'm not really interested in chasing down transitional fossils.

We do not share the same set of interests, evidently. I'm interested in what gives rise to oppression, especially since the justifications given appear to be somewhat fungible. Ancient Hebrews justified genocidal conquest in terms of both religious and tribal identity, showing that religious oppression and ethnic supremacy could be welded and wielded together long before the "white people" of Christendom turned both of those conceptual weapons against their descendents. White supremacy isn't really anything new, it's just a remix of those same ideas but with more emphasis on skin color instead of cultural shibboleths.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The concept was in full swing by the 17th century and was not particularly an American innovation.

If you say so, I will suspend my skepticism forthwith.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Everyone involved in the trans-Atlantic slave trade had need of justification.

It would be interesting to read what justifications they came up with, but I've already decided to just take your word for it.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jt512

I’ve published peer reviewed articles criticizing wokism under—obviously—my real name, so it is not the case that I don’t have the courage of my convictions. However, I have learned (the hard way) the futility of engaging in these matters on this website.

So has John McWhorter, and he's still an idiot.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Trausti

I view Woke as a rejection of the pre-Obama liberal values. As Bill Maher recently put it,

Bill Maher is also an idiot.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Bill Maher is also an idiot.

this cannot be repeated often enough.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

this cannot be repeated often enough.

Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by jt512

That’s the historical definition.

That is not what you said

Originally Posted by jt512

That’s actually a good point. The woke like to ask because they like to deny that woke exists entirely or that is just a term that conservatives use to label “anything they don’t like.” The latter narrative has become so pervasive that googling “woke” turns up nothing other than websites parroting that lie. To find an honest discussion of what woke is, I had to use google.de, which at the top of the search returned an article in Der Spiegel that explained the post-modernist origins of wokism. This was not the case even six months or so ago, when a simple Google search easily found similar honest historical and philosophical explanations.

The Der Spiegel article included the following line (translating from memory): Hardly anybody today wants to be known as woke. But that in no way means that the phenomenon is a Chimera. The fact that hardly anybody today would self-identify as an antisemite hardly means that nobody is one.

I'll take your attempt to worm out of this as a concession I proved you wrong. I gracefully accept.

Quote:

No one uses the term that way anymore.

No one in your circles or anyone you will acknowledge. But, your personal incredulity is not evidence of anything except your narrow view.

Quote:

Those who pretend otherwise, such as you, are the ones who are “full of it.”

Sounds like you need some friends who don't consider the Confederate flag "proud history".

[JoeMorgue]

"Race is a subspecies" is really making the subtext the text here people.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So has John McWhorter, and he's still an idiot.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Bill Maher is also an idiot.

As I've said to my children, disagreeing with you, even being wrong does not make someone an idiot.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Next thing you know they'll be quoting Joe Rogan.

Equating Rogan and McWhorter, oi vey. Have you considered addressing arguments instead of just name calling.

Never mind, as folks have pointed out, this thread is basically about the use of words that used to have specific meaning as just ad hom attacks to discredit opponents. Go ahead, keep at it.

[JoeMorgue]

I'll never stop being tickled at people who care about literally nothing except wrong people being treated .000000000000000001% worse then they thing they should.

[Donal]

Originally Posted by ahhell

As I've said to my children, disagreeing with you, even being wrong does not make someone an idiot.

What about being loudly, aggressively, repeatedly wrong? Because Maher is, in fact, a smug idiot.

[JoeMorgue]

Again the only sin wrong people recognize is being "too much" against wrong people.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

So has John McWhorter, and he's still an idiot.

McWhorter seems pretty highly qualified to weigh in on the current meaning of phrases like "white supremacy," though, having studied linguistics and written books about race relations.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk