Woke Philosophy – what is it?

[Arjen]

LuckyR and Greta I would liek to ask the both of you to stop derailing the topic. The topic question is what is woke-ism. However, the both of you are bashing the people into trump voters, far right and racism for answering the topic question. Stop it. I will refrain from answering both your recent comments (insultive) posts and try to get back on topic with facts.

****Disclaimer****
While I understand that some things are not 100% proof, I think these sources should make you research, not condemn. After all, a hidden agenda is not normally broadcasted on the internet. These are just the things that I found by using google and my mind, that is all. I am not some international reporter that needs to have rock solid proof. Also: do not target the messenger, stay on topic. There is nothing racist about calling BLM and wokeism communist.
****************
1) The question is what is wokeism?
I assert it is communist in nature, using not class but wealth as basis for the struggle. And furthermore, subsuming wealth is associated with skin colour, so BLM is shown as part of this wokeism.
2) In order to validate the claim, I show the BLM website and the founders as communist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgVszfP_c-A
"We are trained Marxists (organised) and building a movement that can be utilized by many many black folks."
Which proves the communist intent, as far as I am concerned and it shows the racist undertone of this communist initiative.
But what's more:
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/

whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy

So not anti-racism, but using racism for a "class struggle" to destroy the majority rule.
3) I also claim that it gained popularity mostly by twisting facts in the media. For which I use the following links:
https://m.theepochtimes.com/major-us-me ... 64575.html
https://thenationalpulse.com/politics/e ... ScSJRQf9kY
While I have read that those are made out to be bias on the right wing spectrum (I do not read the media normally), the claim made is valid and not disputed. I do agree that this will be extremely hard to point to specific news messages. However, they reveal themselves in that they attempt to provoke emotional responses and omit facts. It is worrying that media that report on these issues are immediately labelled "far right"
4) The presence on universities is validated by the bizarre activities of the Confucious institutes. Some sources:
http://english.hanban.org/
https://www.ciuscenter.org/
International controversy:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-30567743
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-17/ ... d/11299744
It shows the attempt to use Chinese law and Marxist ideas on foreign soil.
And the link to intellectual theft and spying on a foreign entity:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-10/ ... n/10875960
I think this shows the subversive influence the Confucious institutes have on Universities.
5) The involvement of "anti"fa with BLM, which is openly communist. While communism is a form of fascism, so not " anti", only fa.


So, my conclusion is that wokeism is communist in nature, as expressed by BLM and as empowered by media and university manipulation. It's extremist nature is clear in the media manipulation, emotion provoking tactics and utter destruction. It hides behind racial issues, that often appear to not be supported by facts in order to validate a "class struggle", which does not exist as such in democracies, while not acting in a way to solve racial injustice.

I hope that people can give other opinions on the matter, or argue the case with facts. Do not attack the poster, nor the sources with false claims. Their positions are not relevant. It is the facts that matter. I can't believe that I have to say this... To Greta an d Lucky, of all people...

[LuckyR]

If you want to hang out in an echo chamber, you are certainly free to do so. Running and hiding has not been the historical response to challenges in the Forum. Have fun.

[Arjen]

Extreme, radical, far...all have been used more or less the same, but nowadays, as I said, it has become pure act of gesture. It has nothing to do with real transformation, revolutionary aspirations, overthrowing the establishment, etc.

Do you mean that it is being used to gain some form of control?

Societies have been divided in classes, there's no argument against that. Even the USSR had its particular class division. Weber, which by no means can be said to represent communist views, had his own theory of social stratification which included class divisions. In any case, any theory of class division does not rely only on the passing of wealth and social privileges from one generation to another. While that was the most common social dynamic during the reign of the aristocracy, the rise of the bourgeois class and capitalism inaugurated other social and economic relations, where, as Marx and Engels put it, came the "end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations... and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous cash payment”. Inherited privileges obviously will play a factor, but ultimately, money talks. The next billionaire could rise by pure luck from the lower class. That's not the issue for modern theory of class and the fight against inequality, more concerned with the uneven distribution of wealth and the concentration of power in a few people. The US is a plutocracy. Hardly a materialistic base to be ignored.

I am not saying these things do not exist, but do you agree that the very rich and normal citizens in the USA are different from class systems, or caste systems?

Also: All systems in the world include "rich and powerful" people in power. Or better, even where this is not pre-determined, the people that are best at using the system come into more power and more wealth. As opposed to totalitarian systems, like communism, where the system is completely controlled by the party members as a ruling elite, who are the rich and powerful. Do you agree with that assessment?

[Sy Borg]

It appears that disagreement with Arjen about the origins of "wokeism" is deemed by him to be derailing the topic.

You are conflating communism with tempering extreme inequality. If you base your opinions on sensationalist reports and photos, rest assured the fringe extreme left wingers will have all the main attention-grabbing placards and try to steal the agenda for themselves.

I remember going to the huge protest march in Hyde Park against our involvement in the Iraq invasion. The park was full of regular people, concerned about unethical and unjustifiable behaviour by the government. But when I saw the news, every time the cameras were focused on the banners of the Socialist Alliance, who are basically professional protesters, and highly organised, ready to hijack any major protest to promote themselves and their issues. I was disgusted. The impression from the media was that the crowds were full of naive university radicals rather than regular people. That so neutered the impact of 250,000 people that I wondered if the Socialist Alliance was a government plant, designed to hijack protest marches.

Same with BLM. Many of the people there have no interest in Communism, or actively dislike it. Fringe groups act as parasites on these protests and people fall for their games every time. To claim that these protests would not happen if not for CCP interference ignores US's long history of division and the increased divisions created by extreme wealth inequality.

[Arjen]

Great seems to have lost perspective again. The whole point of BLM is to subversively use concerned people for communist goals. Which is what all the lies are for.

I mean:
One BLM founder says herself that they do have an agenda with BLM and that is Marxism. How clear can you have that part? Ofcourse not everyone is aware of that and not everyone is down with that. In exactly the same way as not everyone that is questioning BLM is a Trump voter, although that same news frames people as such.

I'll refrain from answering Greta again, due to leading offtopic.

[Sculptor1]

Great seems to have lost perspective again. The whole po

Where the F did you come from?

[Steve3007]

It appears that disagreement with Arjen about the origins of "wokeism" is deemed by him to be derailing the topic...

Yes, as I quoted him at the start of a series of posts, he repeatedly talked about "wokeism" being synonymous with Chinese communism, and repeatedly berated people for not "checking facts". So I did some checking of one of the sources he'd cited, as a sample. It contained nothing to either adequately define "wokeism" in terms of concrete actions taken by real people and it contained nothing to support his continued assertions. His reply:

I posted those articles to show the fact that the western media does contain propaganda nowadays. Not to show wokeism is communism. It is just the first step in that. It does shiw where the extreme media bias is coming from. Like the million news articles about Trumps dumb tweets. There is no news value in most of them. It is just Trump bashing to generate an emotional response. It is Trump, so it is foolish/untrue, etc.

Anyway, those links were to show the link between woke BLM and the CCP. The media bias is incredible on BLM. Lack of facts, twisting the facts, reversal of facts. There are many more angles for the CCP than just causing trouble in tbe USA.

Concerning proving a link between the CCP and "the woke", it will not actually be findable like that. It can only be circumstancial. The open confucious institutes and the less open media links are the only basis. From there it will have to be fact checking the news and comparing it to known propaganda. That is a big help for me, my wife being from HK.

All very confused as to what he's actually hoping to demonstrate and what he berates people for not accepting.

"Not to show wokeism is communism."
"Anyway, those links were to show the link between woke BLM and the CCP."
"Concerning proving a link between the CCP and "the woke", it will not actually be findable like that. It can only be circumstancial."

Here's what he said previously about evidence that he regards as circumstancial when it finds something that he doesn't like:

You used circumstancial evidence to motivate an emtional response.

I think he needs to be clearer about what exactly he wants to claim and how to go about finding evidence to support those claims. All this "wokeism is communism is fascism" and "I check facts!" and "I demand apologies!" stuff does more harm than help to his cause.

[Tecolote]

You are avoiding (on purpose?) my corollary of: "if you felt your kid might be the next victim". True there are too many parents of death by cop, but let's not fool ourselves, they are vastly outnumbered by those whose kids are not (yet) victims but have a very real (speak of reality) fear that they could be. What do you propose those parents of tomorrow's potential tragedy do today?

Compare how the parents of those killed by police raised their children with parents whose children have minimal to no contact with police.

As to your strawman, please point out who on the BLM list of victims was in mid-liquor store robbery or carjacking at the time of their death.

No strawman; just examples. BLM was started on a lie: Michael Brown had just strongarm-robbed a convenience store when he was confronted by police. The officer was not only cleared by a grand jury; the entire affair was investigated separately by Eric Holder's Justice Department and not prosecuted. Holder, himself, also went on record to say that "Hands up, don't shoot" was a lie (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... rown_1.pdf)

As for the current crop of cases, we'll have to wait and see for these cases to be investigated and possibly brought to trial, where things like evidence will come into play, instead of feelings intensified by the media and self-proclaimed trained marxists with bullhorns.

[LuckyR]

You are avoiding (on purpose?) my corollary of: "if you felt your kid might be the next victim". True there are too many parents of death by cop, but let's not fool ourselves, they are vastly outnumbered by those whose kids are not (yet) victims but have a very real (speak of reality) fear that they could be. What do you propose those parents of tomorrow's potential tragedy do today?

Compare how the parents of those killed by police raised their children with parents whose children have minimal to no contact with police.

As to your strawman, please point out who on the BLM list of victims was in mid-liquor store robbery or carjacking at the time of their death.

No strawman; just examples. BLM was started on a lie: Michael Brown had just strongarm-robbed a convenience store when he was confronted by police. The officer was not only cleared by a grand jury; the entire affair was investigated separately by Eric Holder's Justice Department and not prosecuted. Holder, himself, also went on record to say that "Hands up, don't shoot" was a lie (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... rown_1.pdf)

As for the current crop of cases, we'll have to wait and see for these cases to be investigated and possibly brought to trial, where things like evidence will come into play, instead of feelings intensified by the media and self-proclaimed trained marxists with bullhorns.

Are you trying to say that children raised a certain way deserve to be killed by cops for issues that others raised a different way get a ticket and a "drive safe, ma'am" from the traffic cop?

Talk about cherry picking. What could Breanna Taylor possibly be doing within the confines of her own home that makes what happened to her OK?

[Tecolote]

Are you trying to say that children raised a certain way deserve to be killed by cops for issues that others raised a different way get a ticket and a "drive safe, ma'am" from the traffic cop?

Where did "deserve" come into this? You asked me: What do you propose those parents of tomorrow's potential tragedy do today?

Again, I'm forced to ask: is reading comprehension no longer a required part of the tertiary education of philosophers today?

[quoteTalk about cherry picking. What could Breanna Taylor possibly be doing within the confines of her own home that makes what happened to her OK?[/quote]

I don't know either way. That's why we have these things called "investigations" and "trials," away from what the mobs and media try to whip up.

[Ecurb]

Talk about cherry picking. What could Breanna Taylor possibly be doing within the confines of her own home that makes what happened to her OK?

Many police officers are racists, and I support the BLM movement. However, I also find it strange that some people are unaware of what Breonna Taylor could have possibly been doing. The NYT outlines the case:

https://www.nytimes.com/article/breonna ... olice.html

It's unclear whether the police announced their identity before breaking into the apartment (they claim they did, but her boyfriend Kenneth Walker claims they didn't), but if Walker hadn't been in possession of a firearm and hadn't opened fire on the police when they broke in (he shot first and wounded one of the officers), Breonna would be alive today. This case outlines the danger of personal protection firearms. Suppose it had been Taylor's old boyfriend breaking into the apartment (as Walker claims he believed)? Would shooting at him have made Walker or Taylor safer? Or would he have returned fire, too?

(I'll grant that the War on Drugs, which led to the search warrant issued for Taylor's apartment, may be structurally racist.)

[Terrapin Station]

By the way I was going to message you, but you've got something set so you can't receive private messages.

[Sculptor1]

The whole point of BLM is to subversively use concerned people for communist goals.

What do you make of this?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/se ... FIbsYT5-R4

[LuckyR]

By the way I was going to message you, but you've got something set so you can't receive private messages.

Hhmmm… I looked at it and can't figure out what is blocking that sort of thing. I'll ask Greta to take a look.

[LuckyR]

Are you trying to say that children raised a certain way deserve to be killed by cops for issues that others raised a different way get a ticket and a "drive safe, ma'am" from the traffic cop?

Where did "deserve" come into this? You asked me: What do you propose those parents of tomorrow's potential tragedy do today?

Again, I'm forced to ask: is reading comprehension no longer a required part of the tertiary education of philosophers today?

Talk about cherry picking. What could Breanna Taylor possibly be doing within the confines of her own home that makes what happened to her OK?

I don't know either way. That's why we have these things called "investigations" and "trials," away from what the mobs and media try to whip up.

You were the one who introduced differences in upbringing into a conversation on the fact that different people get treated differently by the police. I was just trying to figure out why. I asked a question (rather than assume I knew what you were driving at). Seeking clarification as opposed to jumping to conclusions, you should try it.

So attorneys general (who work with cops every single day) are the arbiters of the truth when it comes to the behavior of said cops? I'll put my reading comprehension against your (fake) naivete' any day.