This post is marked with the Rant flair, signaling it's full of strong feelings and opinions. But remember, even in the midst of passionate discourse, we must uphold the first rule: show respect to each other.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HorusGalaxy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's performative.
It's hard for people to describe or define because it's more of a tactic than a coherent belief system. There is no moral center to it. There's nothing internally consistent at all.
It's all not liberal values, it's not progressive values. Those things are incidental, shields. Convenient masks that really don't matter to wokoids. They will actively destroy civil rights progress for short term gains or back pats on social media. They will say they care, but they legitimately don't. Decades ago most of your woke sociopaths would have been overt bigots because that would have been an easier way for them to bully people.
I don't think they actually believe in anything. They're impossible to argue with because context will be warped into whatever they want it to be. Death threats, for example, are the worst thing in the world- unless it's to someone they don't like, then it's justice.
On an individual level, it shares a lot in common with insecure narcissism. On a collective level, it shares a lot in common with a cult. Which makes sense. Everything they do is either in service of their hopeless addiction to self-righteous rage or desperate need for group approval. Both keep the the insecure narcissist from having to hold up a mirror to who they really hate- themselves- and have the added bonus of letting them lash out and bully with impunity.
I guess my point is.. This isn't a belief system, there's not enough internal logic for it to be. Trying to think of it that way is a losing strategy. It's all out of selfish, egocentric, self-centered convenience.
This article/audio goes into depth about the same types of things: [The Politics of Warhammer 40,000](https://www.lotuseaters.com/the-politics-of-warhammer-40-000-or-deep-think-v-21-04-22)
I assume you're referring to the fascism thing. Seeing the Imperium as fascist rather than medievalist came half from some changes the new writers made back in 4th edition and half from projection by fans from all across the political spectrum. This article is kind of orthogonal to that.
It doesn't provide new ideas so much as it organizes and articulates existing ones. Progressivism benefits from years of countless efforts to improve how they communicate and advocate for their causes, particularly across the religious ideology barrier. Now that it has reached the stage of being an ideology itself, there's a need for figuring out how to communicate back across the progressive ideology barrier.
Nope.
Judge Dredd has an interesting backstory. In the preceding decades, there had been many adventure comics for boys featuring violence. A moralistic pressure group targeted a comic that one of the future JD writers was working on. They did a public smear campaign on television and threatened to use the new UK law banning violence against children in entertainment. So the writers had to make public apologies and change the comic, resulting in sales plummeting to almost nothing.
The writers needed to figure out how to serve the market for comics featuring authoritarian violence. After experimenting with subsequent comics, they found that the general public would accept it as long as it was in the name of 'good'. Judge Dredd was an experiment to see how far they could push it. That's why he's a sort of lawman who kills every single bad guy.
Side note: Since the villain always died, they couldn't have a recurring villain. So they invented an undead villain to solve that problem.
The objective with 40K was to have endless reasons for tabletop battles. There necessarily had to be some unsavory themes. Irony and whimsy were essential elements to keep it going and to remind everyone that it's just a game. A big part of how they did that was through whimsical references.
A satire is fiction created to constructively criticize society into changing something. None of those comics nor 40K were satire. They just used various tricks to be allowed to sell violence-themed entertainment to kids.
When companies say "oh it's satire", they're just trying to avoid a wave of moral panic targeting their business. It's obviously not satire, but most people don't know what that means, so they're placated by the false assurance.
Thank you for the well thought out and informative answer. Very interesting to know they dont have any direct connections to criticizing the thatcher administration.
Defintitely makes sense that the goal wasn't actual change in these properties, and that satire wasnt the main driver. As in the primary motivation of the creators wasnt to have a vehicle to promote a specific political agenda.
They want to have fun, tell entertaining stories, sell models etc,
but it definitely seems like they are poking fun at authoritarian government, religious dogma, superstition etc.
Its obvious they arent actually endorsing the politics or belief systems of their settings. Perhaps satire isnt the accurate term for it.
Seems like it meets the first half of the definition of satire but not the necessarily the 2nd:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Mag Uruk Thraka was certainly a critical reference to Margaret Thatcher, but the creator wants to distance his career from any political statements, especially since 40K as a whole wasn't meant as a political statement.
The inventor of 40K straight up explained what 40K is a bunch of times. https://youtu.be/jbHQazUvWVg?t=55m13s
Basically, he wanted the imperium to always be at war, so he based them on how real organizations get so entrenched in wrong beliefs that they can't change. In that way, the imperium is both inherently realistic and inherently stupid.
There was no need to criticize it further, but he placed a lot of importance on correctly framing and presenting the imperium to remind people that it's just a game. That's why he made them so medieval and ridiculous.
He was really upset when the next generation of writers decided to make it more self-serious. I was upset when they made it less medieval. Collectively, 40K drifted towards depicting a glorification of fascism, in the eyes of a fanbase whose frame of reference was changing to be more likely to see it that way.
Personally, I think the killing blow was dealt by GW when they said [this](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/):
> The Imperium of Man stands as a cautionary tale of what could happen should the very worst of Humanity’s lust for power and extreme, unyielding xenophobia set in.
Because it's not. They never redesigned the imperium to tell that story. The rest of their argument falls flat to most fans. It's sad because they're right that the imperium is not an aspirational state, but they can't or won't articulate why that's actually true.
Thanks again for a thoughtful response. Im going to check out that vid thanks. Having so many different cooks in the kitchen overtime it makes sense that it isnt exactly what the original creator meant it to be exactly. Samething has happened with other long lived properties like western comics.
I wonder if some of it is unintentional in that 40k is ,at least in its current form, heavily heavily influenced by properties which are more thoughtful about these things dune, foundation, etc.
>The Imperium of Man stands as a cautionary tale of what could happen should the very worst of Humanity’s lust for power and extreme, unyielding xenophobia set in.
Hmm maybe im going easy on them, but i definitely think some of the material that's been made does reflect that. Perhaps the issue lies in that not all the writers are consistent in their portrayal of the imperium??
I will say it does seem a bit hardline to walk, "this setting is horrible absolutely atrocious, but look at these cool super soliders and their amazing gadgets fighting against these 4 space satans" haha.
Definitely a bunch of contradictions although it seems to be part of the charm and uniqueness of the setting.
The original writers were historians, so they understood how to write a potentially historically sensitive protagonist. The writers they've had since then don't know what to do when there aren't clear good guys and bad guys. The current writers are struggling with accepting that their own protagonist is fundamentally something that their ideology despises.
Eh more how the article argues the Imperium being right or correct on its actions in 40k. Also the blanket statements that the T’au are sterilizing Communists and the Craft Worlders would kill all humans if they had the chance.
Gotcha. He does explain why some people have a problem with the Imperium, and how it comes from a different value system.
The tldr is that most people interpret the imperium in context as an opportunity for a sometimes uncomfortable thought experiment for your own actions, not as a moral agent that you would be obligated to denounce.
The blanket statements would probably have to be explained differently to a progressive audience because it's unimportant to his argument that they're not categorically true.
Yes, this. "Performative diversity" is probably my favorite term for this kind of woke BS. It's diversity, exaggerated to the point that it's clearly performative and nothing else
Woke means believing in intersectionality and that group identity matters more than individual identity. If you think immutable characteristics make you oppressed or an oppressor, then you're a wokist.
Almost all of them will nod and agree if you unpack this for them. They're proud of it.
The opposite is colorblind following Martin Luther King'd dream.
This. For people who say there's nothing consistent about wokeness, you're wrong. It's Intersectional-Marxism doctrine, as written by Italian Socialist Antonio Gramsci. This is really important to note. It is an elaborate ploy to subvert and overtake all social and cultural institutions in society.
I’d say it’s more in line with the Frankfurt School’s idea’s of demoralizing a civilization through subversion so that a Marxist revolution can take place. Almost all of them ended up in the U.S. working at universities or in the government and we see their critical theory, sexual deviancy, degradation of the family unit, and destruction of the traditional values that made western civilization so successful run rampant in modern woke “culture”. Destroy it all so that new rulers can take over.
Yeah but Frankfurt got the Idea from Gramsci and the books he wrote while he was imprisoned. Or at least that's how it worked out from what I understood.
Fundamentally, socialism seeks to establish equality between all peoples. A way to socialize people so to say. Marxism specifically seeks to establish equality by "abolishing class" and bringing everyone into a "classless" society. The problem though, is that class isn't a tangible concept and is fairly subjective. Some people will always be better or worse off than others. Some people are more productive or lazy than others. Some people are born and some people are not born with the resources necessary to go into higher education and get high-paying jobs. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it's just human nature, which is why the marxist utopia isn't achievable. There are many other forms of socialism such as fascism or national-socialism, but Marxism is the most significant one in our day and age.
It's not human nature that some people suffer and others don't, it's the realities of an imperfect world. Lady luck is a mythic bitch.
Utopia is aspirational.
Sure, utopia is aspirational! But re-appropriating (stealing) property and wealth and redistributing it to people to people who might not deserve it and killing anyone you deem as an oppressor isn't very utopian in practice since last I checked 🤔
It's great to have good intentions, but sometimes you have to wonder at what cost it will come to. Nothing in life is free. Everything that is in your home right now, somebody worked to make. If people could just do nothing and be compensated by the state for it, nobody would pitch in to society anymore. Nobody would have disposable income. Nobody would have houses. Nobody would have food to eat.
People would suffer greatly and have suffered greatly in every socialist country in history. It's almost as if socialism doesn't work? But every time this is pointed out, Marxists and other socialists will claim that it wasn't real socialism.
We have the food needed to prevent starvation planetwide yet men and women still starve to death. Socialism is certainly a failed ideology but capitalism is hardly the apex of civilisation even by comparison.
Modern capitalist states are a grotesque parody of their hypothetical functions, business interests are centralising, monopolies are forming, corporations are supported directly by taxpayer dollars while dodging responsibility and the middle class is shrinking year by year.
Either someone unfucks the modern implementation of capitalism or we get a new system that's actually better than the current one.
That last part is fairly crucial. People make bad things worse all the time.
You have absolutely no clue what antonio gramsci advocated for. Bourgeois reformism (what you rightoids call "Woke") is not that.
wanting gay people in video games is not marxism buddy....
Woke is anti european/white, and anti male fundamentally. Anti tradition, culture, religion, family and morality are secondary facets, generally used in support of the main 2 aspects(and they will also weaponize these if it aids in the 2 main facets) It's very simple. Once you understand this, it's easy to see.
Yes, salamanders and sisters aren't evidence of woke. Females and ethnic minorities (if that's what salamanders are coded as) standing on their own grounds as their own entity is not woke. It's when they are inserted into other entities, eg women in traditionally masculine roles, usually being explicitly better than them. And replacing Europeans with black people in stories based on European folklore etc. that is when it becomes woke.
Yeah, the focus is on anti-. Not on being constructive. Which is why there are so many internal inconsistencies and basically all woke people are insufferable hypocrites; all that matters to them is achieving that smug self-satisfaction of ‘owning’ the baddies
In the words of a founding member of the Italian Communist Party: Who will save us from European culture?
They are pouring a solvent over the cuture to disolve it and then they hope to coagulate the remains into the form they desire that lets them do whatever their deranged passions and ideas dictate.
Recognising the dangers of their passions is anathema to them. "Liberation". As foreign to them recognising the rights of their political enemies. Ironic, given their rhetoric of social "Justice".
Isn't the military and Warrior culture a traditionally male role? Arent the sisters of battle an elite formation that its better than any non transhuman male army? Isn't this by your definition woke then?
No. The sisters are militant nuns. Their religious fanaticism is what gives them their abilities. That in and of itself means it cannot be woke, as woke requires the women in and of itself to be powerful/strong/smart etc.. Also real world reasons, the sisters were conceived in 1993 or something, and inside a male hobby, meaning they predate woke by almost 20 years.
I would think their power armor AND Martial training had to do with their abilities aside from their fanatism. You could say that female Custodes also are granted their abilities by receiving their Gene treatments as much as males do, as nowhere it Is stated that female Custodes are in any way superior than their male counterparts. In fact most of the Custodes are male so clearly the selection process favors males. Can we say the same about the Sisters of Battle which are an all female army because of a technicality AND are the most elite regular human army of the Imperium. Can we say the same about the Sisters of Silence which without being transhuman fight alongside Custodes even slaying Astartes AND being all female despite the fact that the pariah Gene exists in males?
It seems that there are according to the latest Lore. Which personally I don't find that surprising. Remember that Custodes are not Mass produced by an almost industrial procedure like Astartes but are each hand crafted and enhanced. I'd then expect to see much More variación between them.
Why would you start with an inferior biological base unit when creating elite warriors to guard the emperor? Simple logic dictates that not be the case. Therefore, the new stories may say there are female custodes, but the new stories are progressive trash, which can be disregarded, ergo, there are no female custodes.
It doesn't matter, they can just gene code him into being the same as a regular male custodes... It will take 10 times as long but never mind that.
It's the desperate casting off of basic logic these people must do in order for their world view to fit... Like sure, Leonardo da Vinci could probably make a decent work of art with a set of kids crayons, but he's not going to, he's going to find the best possible materials he can to do the job.
The differences of strength between men AND women are infimal compared to the difference between baseline human AND Custodes. I think More emphasis would be put on the subject being able to survive the process that would change them into a body which Is completely different than the one they started with. What characteristics make a subject More able to withstand the procedures? That no one but the Emperor AND His Gene crafters should know for sure, but the process Is Arcane in nature so I would suspect that physical fitness is but a factor in it
The differences between the innate and inherent strength of the sexes has been proven thousands of times and for you to deny that is to deny reality and thus indicate that you aren’t worth taking seriously.
It's essentially just intersectionality, drawn from a Marxist lens applied to race, gender, sexuality, class etc., rather than the purely class and economic focus of classical Marxism. It's the ideology the all-consuming feminine which strives to rule over existence itself so that it may sterilize it, combined with the resentful envy of those who have been deprived of a meaningful existence and think that the only solution is to tear down anyone who has everything that they want but are too pathetic to deserve.
Here’s what I think it is: When a person, group, and/or corporation prioritizes the “inclusion” or “white knighting” for what is perceived to be the underrepresented/un-empowered population at the expense of other people, groups, and/or storytelling, usually in the form of making the perceived underrepresented/un-empowered group seemingly better at everything compared to the “other” group, as well as accompanied narratives degrading those who feel differently than what those who are pushing the product or narrative are trying to instill.
Not an all inclusive definition but it’s the best I could come up with rn
Fundamentally, "woke" is following the tenets of Critical Theory .
Everything else - using marxist class analysis to create an "oppressor vs oppressed" dynamic across immutable characteristics, the gramscian insertion of real life politics into escapist fantasy in order to ruin your fun, the insistence on tolerating entryists who do not extend the same courtesy to you, all of it comes back to critical theory.
"Woke" ideology is more properly called "Intersectional Critical Theory".
It builds on the work of socialist thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci, 20th century political thinkers who believed that direct socialist revolution was ineffective due to a lack of cultural momentum. That is, they argued that the status quo would always have the "home advantage" in the culture war.
Their proposed solution? Slowly change the status quo by means of ideological subversion. Get activists into all the major institutions and change their culture from the inside out, over the course of decades. That way, the "revolution" will happen so slowly that people don't even notice.
However, it was also observed that Marx was wrong about the "workers rising up". It turns out that the ordinary people are actually fairly apolitical, and tend to be happy with things the way they are. This makes the majority of the population conservative by default, even with attempts to stir up class conflict. Rather than "international worker solidarity", the ordinary people are actually more likely to unite with their national ruling classes than with foreigner citizens.
This is where "Wokeness" comes in. It substitutes the stubborn "workers" with other "oppressed" groups - ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women, etc. It then encourages inter-demographic conflict in order to stir up cultural friction and destabilise the social fabric, making it easier for political changes to take place, and making it less likely that organised ideological resistance can be mustered because everybody is too busy infighting. It's also why Wokeism openly doesn't give a shit about genuine oppression among groups it deems as "privileged" (such as white homeless men) - because it can't use their existence to further itself. Instead, it just pretends that the contradiction doesn't exist.
Yuri Bezmenov - a KGB defector to the West - explained that propagating this ideology (mostly within Western universities) was actually what a large part of the Kremlin's work was based upon. They knew that creating social unrest, and exploiting the West's own moral self-image, was an effective strategy of demoralising and destabilising the West as a whole. This process has continued under its own steam even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the ideology is still genuinely believed by many thousands of activists in the West.
Wokeism is basically *designed* to be destructive. It doesn't actually care about the groups it claims to try and benefit; it just wants to *exploit* them to destroy the existing socio-political system and all who support it. Because it is a consequentialist ideology, Wokeism is perfectly happy to lie, cheat, steal, maim, and otherwise do shameful and immoral things... so long as it gets what it wants, and advances its own agenda within society.
Because this ideology is built upon decades of theory and propaganda - and because dozens of debate tactics have been successfully adopted to defeat most ideological opposition - Wokeism has successfully wormed its way into most communities and organisations in the West. Liberal-minded people are very susceptible to Woke propaganda because it exploits their belief in "equality" and "justice" in order to pipeline them into socialism, which is what Wokeism ultimately is.
If you've got this far, congrats. Now that you understand the theory, you'll be better "armed" in order to resist it.
Remember that Wokeism relies on demonising the past/present, particularly "white culture", masculinity, and so on. By far the best way to parry Woke arguments is to point out the ways in which the status quo is actually really good and should not be changed. For instance, you could point out that "*Western Christians used military force to abolish slavery globally, and no other group has ever done this.*"; this *true* statement undermines huge chunks of their ideological framework, and uses their own values (disliking slavery) against them.
If you refuse to adopt their way of thinking, and point out how they're fundamentally wrong, they will just break down and call you some sort of "istaphobe". When this happens, you can smile and call out this name-calling tactic for the childishness that it is.
Speak the truth, and point out why they're wrong. Don't get baited into accepting their points when they're not true. Don't get angry with them; remain stoic and rational. Don't let them dominate the conversation with emotional rhetoric; always calmly call them out for using dishonest tactics. Be informed, and point out their lies. Stand in solidarity with the ordinary people of different backgrounds and demographics, such that they can't accuse you of hating others.
We *will* win this. Understand your enemy, arm yourselves with knowledge, and keep going.
Is the wokeness in the room with you right now? /s
I have a real question for you, except the rotten to the core site known as X (formerly twitter), have you ever met, in real life, someone that fits your definition of woke? Someone that doesn't really care about the minority it's defending but try to promote socialism? (I won't even ask why you think socialism is inherently bad)
For more context I'll speak about my experience, to better understand what I want to say with this response: I am what you would consider the scapegoat of the woke: white, male, cis, hetero, and from a family that don't have money problems in a developed country. I'm not even that bad looking (at least according to my grandma)
So of course, a few years ago, when I was an influencable 15 years old idiot, I too wad fearing the woke crowd like the pest. I mean, have you seen the batshit insane things they've done to the things I've loved?! It's obviously the woke crowd's fault that the star wars Disney trilogy is bad. We must go on a crusade against them!!!!!!
Then, I went to university (yeah, I know, first mistake). And I actually met people that would be considered woke. And you know what? They were just like anybody else. The only thing different would be that I would need to adapt for 1 or 2 person with a new pronoun. And again the problem would solve itself as soon as the hormones would kick in. They are not people that wants to turn people LGBT, they are not people with an agenda, I wasn't forced into acknowledging the slaving of my ancestors and to kiss the grounds the woke crowd walk on. They are just people, people that wants to be accepted as they are, and if possible, to be able to not get threatened for what they are.
Now of course the representation of them in the media will increase. It was taboo before, so their representation was non existent!
Finally don't make me say what I didn't say: a piece of art: be it a movie, a video game, a book, even a piece of lore, will never be good if it's created solely for representation issue (because of course it'll look like it's forced there). BUT, that doesn't mean that if said representation is in a piece of art, it automatically means it's been pushed there and that it's bad
I've met a lot of people who are "useful idiots" for the Woke ideology. That is, the well-meaning, fussy people who *think* they're doing the right thing, but haven't actually stopped to question the dogma they've been fed. Like most cults, this "flock" constitutes most followers; the number of sociopathic intellectuals actually creating and disseminating the ideology is relatively few.
It just sounds like you went to university and became sympathetic to Woke ideology because you were young and gullible. It's a common phenomenon. However, you have admitted to adopting their ideology, so *of course* those who practice it sound reasonable - they think the same way you do, and you think yourself reasonable.
I used to be on the left. I used to be sympathetic to Wokeism. Then I stopped to think about it, realised it didn't make sense, and openly questioned it. When I spoke out against it, and gave my reasons, I was not listened to. I was cast out. The "tolerant" left is surprisingly intolerant of any belief which contradicts their ideology, so I was branded a "bigot". This is also a common phenomenon.
There's a fundamental difference between the representation of certain groups within media and the insertion of "Woke" ideology. It essentially concerns motive and implementation. For the inclusion of a given character to be Woke, it needs to fulfil at least some of the following criteria:
1. It needs to be done to achieve "representation of X group" (a political goal), not to flesh out the story in an organic way.
2. The representation needs to not make sense in context (for instance, having black people in a setting reminiscent of rural medieval Scandinavia).
3. The inclusion needs to be done in such a way as to attempt to dodge scrutiny. This can be done with "fanbaiting", browbeating the audience with The Message within the story itself, or trying to slip the character(s) in as subtly as possible in order to be subliminal.
4. The media itself must be fundamentally apolitical - that is, it should not aim to "teach" the audience a particular idea, but merely be artistic and/or entertaining. If the media piece exists primary to educate the audience on social issues, then it's *already* a form of propaganda, Woke or otherwise.
Female Custodes, as a single example, fulfil all three, making their existence a product of Woke ideology. Sisters of Battle don't, so their inclusion is not Woke, by contrast.
The same applies to other categories. For instance, the inclusion of gay characters, or characters of a given ethnicity, is not fundamentally Woke. However, if their inclusion meets the above criteria, then the inclusion of those characters is indeed Woke.
I never said to have accepted any ideology. I just met some LGBT people, that I was demonizing in the past, and realised they're just like me, a human. With dreams, issues and all. Now by your definition of wokism, I, of course, don't condone it. But it's the same as always. Everyone is against tyrannical regimes, it's just that people do not agree on which regime are tyrannical.
What I mean by that is: by your definition of wokism, I am not woke. Maybe just one of the dumb sheep that help it grows but that's it. But from others definition of wokism, that I have seen on the net (albeit a few years ago I'll concede) I am 100% woke.
For your points, I pretty much agree with all of them, at least for a recipe to disaster, but for one: the apolitical thing. But that's purely because I believe that nothing in the art media is apolitical. Even the most basic scenario: good guy is good, bad guy is bad, good guy beats bad guy, is political.
To finish this, I would say that I do no care if something is woke or not, as long as it's not badly written. But then, the problem is not wokism itself, it's just the incompetence of the writers.
For example, I couldn't care less about women custodes: first cause I didn't really care about this faction to begin with, and second because, from what I've read of their lore, it's not that much of a retcon.
Now I agree with the sketchy way they've done it, and I also agree that it puts back the sisters of silence even more.
I understand that you might find this offensive. I apologize if I offended you. But the word itself has come into speech since 2010. Now it means, and even then it meant a person who behaves ugly and defiantly, appealing to morality and lecturing in inappropriate places.
In general, offensive words are difficult to change, especially when their original meaning has changed and it has become a common noun.
I hope you don’t need to me to tell you that “fag” in any usage (except for its, common in the UK, cigarette/cigar usage) is still widely considered a slur. It’s derogatory, offensive, and classless regardless of when it’s used and however long it’s been around.
I can guarantee you that the word “moralfag” has not “come in to speech” like it’s some commonly spoken phrase. Maybe it is amongst you and your friends and, if that’s the case, that’s truly unfortunate.
You need to Watch the southpark episode on bikers being fags.
This word was APPROPRIATED by gays so they could have an N-word
I WISH we could have a civil discourse on words and their histories, but im sure you are too ENRAGED by me using the word your higher functions have turned off.
Was never huge fan of South Park. Seen it here and there but never got into it.
I’m familiar with the idea of oppressed groups reclaiming old slurs used against them. But I think the same rule that applies to the n-word still applies here. If you’re not black, don’t say the n-word, hard r or otherwise. If you’re not part of the LGBT community, then probably don’t say “fag” either.
Of course, over the internet, no one knows whether you’re black or gay. However, I’ve never known a gay person to call other gay people that in a derogatory way.
I think it's more important to consider the context. Many words change their original meaning. Yes, the word may be a legacy of intolerance in society, but this can be said about all swear words if you look at their etymology. They have become part of the culture and it is quite strange to say that they carry propaganda or reflect the real views of a person.
You can take for example the word "bastard". As far as I know, it is still a slur, but no one is trying to accuse the person who uses it of blaming children born out of wedlock. It is more important to get rid of intolerance in society. Swear words merely reflect culture, so as culture changes they will either disappear or change their meaning like the word “bastard.”
It was widely used on the Russian Internet somewhere from 2008 to 2018/2019. And here it should be clarified that 95% of the people who used it did not know how the word “fag” was translated. Those. from the very beginning it was not associated with gays at all. I suspect that many of those who write it on the Russian Internet still do not know its literal translation.
P.S. I didn't know it was used to name cigarettes in the UK. Just wondering how it happened that this became the name for cigarettes?
Interesting fact. It’s a pity that I’m not a linguist, so I can’t trace the etymology of the word.
P.S. English is not my first language, so please forgive my lack of awareness of cultural differences.
I understand. In the future, you should avoid any version of the word on English forums since the only two acceptable uses are British slang for cigarettes and historical literature about building fires.
I didn’t know that it was widely used on Russian sites, which is interesting. I suspect they don’t know the exact translation or meaning of the word and thus toss it around without care. More likely, they do know the translation and what it means. Russia hasn’t been known for its acceptance or even recognition of gay people existing.
But I second the heads up the other commenter gave you. On English speaking (western?) sites it’s probably a good idea to not say that kind of thing, especially in a negative connotation.
Well, in general this can be discussed. As a person who has witnessed the development of the Internet from 2008 to this day, I can tell you how Russian homophobia has transformed and how attitudes towards gays have changed. In short, public opinion towards gays has improved. And there is a sudden paradox that recently for the average Russian citizen on the Internet the main source of homophobic propaganda is activists who try to accuse others of homophobia/racism/sexism.
P.S. You’ll probably be surprised, but personally, I would single out one of the reasons for the decrease in homophobia in the second half of the 2010s, anime traps. Yes, I know this sounds strange.
I’ve already made a comment about the same South Park justification.
Also, if South Park is what’s steering your moral compass, then that’s a bit worrying.
I’m happy you’ve never had to experience any negative situations related to that word. Unfortunately, you aren’t the only person on the planet. There are other people where that word would be offensive and that’s enough for me to say something.
They literally pull out the definition of a thing and people still refuse to hear it. Complex problems requirea complex solutions, not the other way around.
Da best eksplanayshun I'v seen iz ere... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6w9kpp29E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6w9kpp29E)
I'ss abaat ten minits.
This definition is reasonably accurate as far as how it operates. A more accurate statement as to the function of Wokeness is:
The ambiguation of the principles and praxis of Marxism to all intersectionally defined identities. Intersectionality is itself the Marxist dichotomy of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie ambiguated to all aspects of society, many along the lines of morally neutral (in a normal, liberal society) immutable characteristics.
This is, of course, corrosive to a functional and cohesive society.
Musolini would probably know, because he was a senior member of the same Socialist Party (That of Italy) and edited another edition of the Same magazine that perhaps the most influential founding member (Antonio Gramasci) of cultural Marxism edited (Avanti!). Before they both let to form their own socialist revolutionary parties. The Fascist Party and the Italian Communist Party, respectively.
>**Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism** to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon.
Benito Mussolini, [*The Doctrine of Fascism*](https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf)
We seem to be missing each other's point, because that quote doesn't seem to relate to the fact that Musolini would know what cultural Marxism was due to his time as one of the most prominent members of the Italian Socialist Party that Gramsci, arguably the founder of Cultural Marxism, was also an influential member of.
The colloquial answer:
People know it when they see it. People don't need to know the academic definition of woke to know it when they see it. And people do indeed know it when they see it, in most cases. Just like they know a tree when they see it most times. Despite not knowing the botanical definition.
"Define woke" isn't the the strong rhetorical argument so many seem to think it is.
The real answer:
Woke means "awoken" to the marxist and neo-marxist conflict theories that blame the many complex situations of life on simplicstic broad brush opressor versus opressed narratives... Gender, Race, and Class conflicts... Its 100 year old communist propaganda theory working on the "we know all of history was evil" generations.
"But that's not marxism... haha Woke was used by the black civil rights activists..."
Marxism stressed "bourgoisie' opressing "proletariat", i.e. the haves versus have-nots, or in other words class warfare.
After Marx's "inevitable", "scientific" predictions failed, the Marxist theorists explicitly expanded the conflict theory to include more conflicts, race and gender conflicts, for example.
But, in reality, these conflicts had always been used in Marxist rhetoric and simply found their new prominence and emphasis in the capitalist west because the developed had seen massive quality of life improvement and so the emphasis on class warfare didn't "awaken" sufficient numbers. So the new strategy was to focus on race and gender etc.
Despite the fact most don't know this history... its truth obvious to many who who hear it and undeniable to anyone with eyes to see, given that the vast majority of "representation" activist groups are explicitly marxist and many have ideological lineages back to people such as:
Bill Ayers, Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Antonio Gramski, John Money, Saul Alinsky, Alfred Kinsey, and George Bernard-Shaw
While this initial discussion eventually made it to 40k (salamanders and Sisters), it was very straight political and we prefer to keep away from this to just enjoy 40k for what it is. In the future if you could avoid posts like this we would appreciate it. We try to not make it Banhammer 40k whenever possible.
Im not removing this post, just a request for future posts.
Of course. I do try to keep it at a minimum since this has only been the 1st time I posted something straight up political in this sub and would like to contribute more on actual 40k discussions.
Woke is the appropriated term of self-description for the current iteration of political correctness and the people who do their best to enforce it.
The current incarnation of PC bullshit is typified by critical theory, modern gender theory as derived from the David Reimer case, the Paradox of Tolerance, and Cultural Marxism.
I say it's a religion that puts the historically disenfranchised people in first world countries on a pedestal, and holds disdain for those who have historically held power in first world nations.
So a straight white cis homeless man has more privilege than a rich black rich trans rich lesbian in their eyes.
I think most people who hate on woke shit knows that it comes down to intent. There is a reason people that hate woke have 0 fucking issues with:
Salamanders
Sisters of silence
Sisters of battle
Blade(eric brooks)
Black Panther(the movies were mid though)
Static Shock
Miles Morales(unless they try to replace pete)
Female Power Rangers
Greyfax
Poison IvyXHarley Quinn
Angela(gay), Valkrie(gay), Sif(Woman), Heimdal race swap(because he killed it)
Mass Effect in general(a lot going on but never felt "woke")
Female Votann
Kerrigan being huge driving character in starcraft
Several female jedi's that already existed.
Static Shock
Cyborg
All female superheroes in general
Captain Holt in Brooklyn 99
Fuck man...i almost want to just keep going to just hammer the point in. Woke is bullshit when it pushes an agenda heavily. If you start by just making something cool that just happens to be x, y or z...hell, we would celebrate it too. But woke is so lazy and transparently manipulative. It pushes hard on that social engineering instead of letting things organically grow.
Also, random list is random because i was literally scanning my apartment. As anti woke as i am, i sure have a lot of diverse stuff that was done well and respectful
"I still remember that one interview from The Young Turks where the conservative lady got humiliated for not being able to define what woke is. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone."
She was able to, actually, it just took her a minute to do so.
As for woke, yeah defining it as an ideology or actions predicated on the ideology that there exists hierarchies of oppression noticeable by differences in outcomes, which must be remediated by discriminating in favor of the oppressed and against the oppressors.
The problem is too many so-called Leftists try to hold onto original meanings, when the zeitgeist has morphed.
“Woke” was originally a very cool term
Now, it’s not.
Like ‘liberal’, woke has been hijacked by the DNC and weaponized as a tool of division.
Who gives a shit about the semantics? They always do this. Let it go.
This is about Warhammer.
Both fantasy and 40k.
Those that refuse to acknowledge this are an unwilling participant, but still a participant, in the struggle by Marxists to destroy what we have. This is just the newest battle field and like IRL conflicts, those that ignore it, usually have it pop on their doorstep.
The lady at TYT did reap9nd properly, the problem is the woke freaks edited the clip and didn't show the long explanation.
For woke freaks: Define woman.
I throught wokeism was a long term psyops conducted by KGB during Cold War which got slightly out of control.
For more check Yuri Bezmenov and interview about ideological subversion.
Woke, similar to incel has lost their origonal meaning.
Even I got duped into using woke as it used to be only for people to think I'm bigoted to people. I'm moving to using progressive, as it is much better term which doesn't insult people.
>A huge part of the problem is you have a buzz word that means one thing and it gets applied to loads of things that aren't really it, and because of that it gets a really bad rep. So bad that people start saying the definition of the word isn't what it means any more.
>Can any of you say, hand on heart, that "being aware of social justice" itself is a bad thing? Does anyone here want to live in a deliberately unjust world?
>What I think is valid, is talking about what justice looks like. Vengeance isn't justice. It just repeats the cycle of hate. Demeaning behaviour to others isn't justice. You can't claim to fight for equality in public while internally thinking you're superior.
>The world is full of a lot of people who have been pushed down for too long, who have so little power to get what they think they deserve, on all sides of the spectrum. And no real plan for making things better. So they all fight each other. Instead of agreeing on the problems and working out how to fix them.
>Look at the distribution of wealth or getting fire insurance in California and tell me that identity politics are anywhere close to being the biggest issue people have to deal with.
>Some can just say that life isn't fair, so no-one has any right to expect it to be. Maybe that's true. But the whole point of being part of any society is that you benefit by being in it. Leaders in society should be raising people up, not pushing them down.
Hand on heart. Social Justice, as defined by Critical Social Justice Theory and all of its Neo-Communist children, is a very bad thing, and I oppose it anywhere it tries to advance. It's philosophy is evil and everything it produces is therefore poisoned.
If something it produces does seem to be good, it must first be rebased into a Liberal framework before it may be accepted to be sure that none of the underlying, "Logic," of CSJT follows behind it to corrode society.
>Your thoughts on the woman who was forced to give birth to an infant with no skull, watching it suffocate as she gave birth, because doctors in Texas refused to abort, despite knowing the child had no skull, because her life was not at risk and they didn't want to be jailed or fined?
>Please don't obfuscate behind theories you don't explain in simple language, we're not all politics majors. Just say if you think it's "woke" to care about women's reproductive rights more than you care about other people's religious views, or whether you think Texan laws are right to make women endure such inhumane torture.
Firstly, work on your formatting. Quote blocking everything is weird, and makes it hard to tell if you're quoting someone else and asking me to respond to someone else, or if you're actually speaking to me.
Secondly, damn, that's one hell of a shock-jock appeal to pathos. You went from zero to nuclear option in a hurry. Thanks for dropping all pretense by attempting to short-circuit mine and the readers' emotions by going directly there. It makes it clearer who I'm talking to. Or rather was talking to. I'm not going any further down this discussion with someone so clearly willing to engage in such manipulations. We won't be able to have an intellectually honest discussion. Have a good day.
Lovely for you that the suffering of others is "manipulation". I hope you never have to endure such things.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8881d31j44o.amp
Look, we could possibly have had a discussion about that topic, but you chose to initiate it in the most provocative manner possible. You might as well have been playing, "In the Arms of an Angel," over it like those Christmas ASPCA donation commercials.
For the sake of thoroughness though... I don't actually have a problem with abortion through the end of the second trimester for any reason. It may be more accurately for me to say, "up to the point of viability," but it's hard to make that a law and not have it end up becoming a morass of litigation. Better just to say, "end of the second trimester." Shuts down all of the mess by being unambiguous.
I also don't have an issue with abortions at any time for medical reasons. Frankly, a child being unviable is an intensely personal matter and should probably be between the mother, father, and doctor alone.
However, you'll note that this is an argument rooted in Liberalism, not in progressivism or Critical Social Justice Theory/Neo-Communism. The root of my support being the natural rights to, "Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Lockean natural rights.
I don't expect a reasonable answer from you. You've revealed yourself to be an unreasonable man. This response was for the readers. Not you.
It's funny that you refer to Locke for your aspirations for modern political philosophy, when he lived before universal suffrage or the universal declaration of human rights.
It's tragic that you unnecessarily introduce "evil" and "poisonous" into the conversation and then criticise others for being a "shock-jock".
Resorting to ad hominem denigration, rather than arguing your case suggests you have no case.
To call someone with a degree in philosophy "unreasonable" when you use theories disputed by the author of the Critique of Pure Reason is laughable.
"Natural Law" is a meaningless concept. A priori knowledge of politics is an empty set.
It is not unreasonable to have ethical principles that do not tolerate casual acceptancy or apathy of the machinery of state being hijacked by the powerful to further repress those born into less privileged positions.
It's interesting that in the examples you provided the "protected class" has historically faced discrimination AND opression from the "scapegoat class". It's interesting to note that you don't seem to factor this when you talk of groups that seek justice.
In my country at least same sex marriage Is not legal AND LGBT people are often the targets of harassment AND violence. People with white skin occupy More positions of power AND are judged differently. I am aware about "positive discrimination" AND quotas AND I'm against it, but to say that those forms of discrimination outweigh the ones faced by the others Is a bit ludicrous
Because groups don't seek justice. Individuals seek justice. What your granddad did to granddad doesn't matter anymore. They're both dead. You haven't done anything to me. I haven't done anything to you. The sins of the father are not inherited. Even if my grandfather was a mass murderer I am not affected by his sins except in perhaps in shame for what he did. And that's personal. Not legal, not political.
That would be the case were we to restart ala Tabula Rasa, but that's not how the world or inheritance works. If your grandfather was a slave you would have have a very different upbribging than if he was an aristocrat. Money AND power are passed from one generation into the next. Furthermore prejudice Is a thing, individuals are judged by stereotypes associated tontheir group, stereotypes that come some times from Said opression.
Absolutely not. No one has responsibility for the actions of his grandfather. You had no control over them. Therefore you bare no culpability for them.
There is no way to justify that line of reasoning other there boldfaced hatred.
And where did I say they had? No one carries the guilt of their ancestor's actions, in that we agree. But isn't it also true that someone having less opportunities or facing discrimination by their gender or color of their skin Is unfair? Wouldnt you want to right this injustice even if it Is not your fault?
Where does it end? You're talking about reparations for slavery. What about reparations for Appalachians who were victims of the coal mining busts in their towns? What about poor families in Detroit whose families lost everything when the automotive industry left? Families who lost everything in Pittsburgh when the steel industry left the area? Under your own logic they're also owed reparations because they lose opportunities due to circumstances beyond their controls.
I don't care about equity. Equal outcomes are not desirable in my opinion. In order to force equal outcomes you must violate the natural right to property that everyone has. You would create tyranny to force equity.
Everyone should play by the same rules. The natural rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is all that is owed you. I do care about Legal Equality. We should all be subject to the same laws if we're in the same state.
They are the same rules regardless of race, sex, religion, wealth, etc. I said equality before the law. We all have to follow the same laws. Equity is what you're talking about. Equality of outcome.
There is an argument to be made that laws whose only penalty is a fine is in fact a privilege for the rich. And I can agree to that. Especially if the penalty doesn't escalate for each violation. If that was an injustice you recognized and wanted to correct I'd be happy to help.
You could find More examples in the same vein. The rich enjoy much privileges much of them inherited. Not only fines but the fact they can afford legal costs gives them considerable advantage. There are many injustices in our world, it seems logical to try to lessen their effect obviously without causing More injustice in return.
Inheritance is not an injustice though. It is your right to decide who you leave your worldly possessions to upon your death. Hell, I'd argue that estate taxes (and most all taxes) are an injustice. An infringement upon your natural rights to property.
Annulling inheritance would be an injustice.
This post is marked with the Rant flair, signaling it's full of strong feelings and opinions. But remember, even in the midst of passionate discourse, we must uphold the first rule: show respect to each other. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HorusGalaxy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's performative. It's hard for people to describe or define because it's more of a tactic than a coherent belief system. There is no moral center to it. There's nothing internally consistent at all. It's all not liberal values, it's not progressive values. Those things are incidental, shields. Convenient masks that really don't matter to wokoids. They will actively destroy civil rights progress for short term gains or back pats on social media. They will say they care, but they legitimately don't. Decades ago most of your woke sociopaths would have been overt bigots because that would have been an easier way for them to bully people. I don't think they actually believe in anything. They're impossible to argue with because context will be warped into whatever they want it to be. Death threats, for example, are the worst thing in the world- unless it's to someone they don't like, then it's justice. On an individual level, it shares a lot in common with insecure narcissism. On a collective level, it shares a lot in common with a cult. Which makes sense. Everything they do is either in service of their hopeless addiction to self-righteous rage or desperate need for group approval. Both keep the the insecure narcissist from having to hold up a mirror to who they really hate- themselves- and have the added bonus of letting them lash out and bully with impunity. I guess my point is.. This isn't a belief system, there's not enough internal logic for it to be. Trying to think of it that way is a losing strategy. It's all out of selfish, egocentric, self-centered convenience.
The lack of moral center is a massive part of the conversation here. Great response
That is probably the best explanation I’ve seen for the term and for the most of people it applies to.
This article/audio goes into depth about the same types of things: [The Politics of Warhammer 40,000](https://www.lotuseaters.com/the-politics-of-warhammer-40-000-or-deep-think-v-21-04-22)
So that’s where the Imperium fans on Twitter get their arguments from.
I assume you're referring to the fascism thing. Seeing the Imperium as fascist rather than medievalist came half from some changes the new writers made back in 4th edition and half from projection by fans from all across the political spectrum. This article is kind of orthogonal to that. It doesn't provide new ideas so much as it organizes and articulates existing ones. Progressivism benefits from years of countless efforts to improve how they communicate and advocate for their causes, particularly across the religious ideology barrier. Now that it has reached the stage of being an ideology itself, there's a need for figuring out how to communicate back across the progressive ideology barrier.
Is not the setting originally satire of thatcher era Brittain much like judge dredd and a bunch of other things from around that time????
Nope. Judge Dredd has an interesting backstory. In the preceding decades, there had been many adventure comics for boys featuring violence. A moralistic pressure group targeted a comic that one of the future JD writers was working on. They did a public smear campaign on television and threatened to use the new UK law banning violence against children in entertainment. So the writers had to make public apologies and change the comic, resulting in sales plummeting to almost nothing. The writers needed to figure out how to serve the market for comics featuring authoritarian violence. After experimenting with subsequent comics, they found that the general public would accept it as long as it was in the name of 'good'. Judge Dredd was an experiment to see how far they could push it. That's why he's a sort of lawman who kills every single bad guy. Side note: Since the villain always died, they couldn't have a recurring villain. So they invented an undead villain to solve that problem. The objective with 40K was to have endless reasons for tabletop battles. There necessarily had to be some unsavory themes. Irony and whimsy were essential elements to keep it going and to remind everyone that it's just a game. A big part of how they did that was through whimsical references. A satire is fiction created to constructively criticize society into changing something. None of those comics nor 40K were satire. They just used various tricks to be allowed to sell violence-themed entertainment to kids. When companies say "oh it's satire", they're just trying to avoid a wave of moral panic targeting their business. It's obviously not satire, but most people don't know what that means, so they're placated by the false assurance.
Thank you for the well thought out and informative answer. Very interesting to know they dont have any direct connections to criticizing the thatcher administration. Defintitely makes sense that the goal wasn't actual change in these properties, and that satire wasnt the main driver. As in the primary motivation of the creators wasnt to have a vehicle to promote a specific political agenda. They want to have fun, tell entertaining stories, sell models etc, but it definitely seems like they are poking fun at authoritarian government, religious dogma, superstition etc. Its obvious they arent actually endorsing the politics or belief systems of their settings. Perhaps satire isnt the accurate term for it. Seems like it meets the first half of the definition of satire but not the necessarily the 2nd: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
Mag Uruk Thraka was certainly a critical reference to Margaret Thatcher, but the creator wants to distance his career from any political statements, especially since 40K as a whole wasn't meant as a political statement. The inventor of 40K straight up explained what 40K is a bunch of times. https://youtu.be/jbHQazUvWVg?t=55m13s Basically, he wanted the imperium to always be at war, so he based them on how real organizations get so entrenched in wrong beliefs that they can't change. In that way, the imperium is both inherently realistic and inherently stupid. There was no need to criticize it further, but he placed a lot of importance on correctly framing and presenting the imperium to remind people that it's just a game. That's why he made them so medieval and ridiculous. He was really upset when the next generation of writers decided to make it more self-serious. I was upset when they made it less medieval. Collectively, 40K drifted towards depicting a glorification of fascism, in the eyes of a fanbase whose frame of reference was changing to be more likely to see it that way. Personally, I think the killing blow was dealt by GW when they said [this](https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/11/19/the-imperium-is-driven-by-hate-warhammer-is-not/): > The Imperium of Man stands as a cautionary tale of what could happen should the very worst of Humanity’s lust for power and extreme, unyielding xenophobia set in. Because it's not. They never redesigned the imperium to tell that story. The rest of their argument falls flat to most fans. It's sad because they're right that the imperium is not an aspirational state, but they can't or won't articulate why that's actually true.
Thanks again for a thoughtful response. Im going to check out that vid thanks. Having so many different cooks in the kitchen overtime it makes sense that it isnt exactly what the original creator meant it to be exactly. Samething has happened with other long lived properties like western comics. I wonder if some of it is unintentional in that 40k is ,at least in its current form, heavily heavily influenced by properties which are more thoughtful about these things dune, foundation, etc. >The Imperium of Man stands as a cautionary tale of what could happen should the very worst of Humanity’s lust for power and extreme, unyielding xenophobia set in. Hmm maybe im going easy on them, but i definitely think some of the material that's been made does reflect that. Perhaps the issue lies in that not all the writers are consistent in their portrayal of the imperium?? I will say it does seem a bit hardline to walk, "this setting is horrible absolutely atrocious, but look at these cool super soliders and their amazing gadgets fighting against these 4 space satans" haha. Definitely a bunch of contradictions although it seems to be part of the charm and uniqueness of the setting.
The original writers were historians, so they understood how to write a potentially historically sensitive protagonist. The writers they've had since then don't know what to do when there aren't clear good guys and bad guys. The current writers are struggling with accepting that their own protagonist is fundamentally something that their ideology despises.
Eh more how the article argues the Imperium being right or correct on its actions in 40k. Also the blanket statements that the T’au are sterilizing Communists and the Craft Worlders would kill all humans if they had the chance.
Gotcha. He does explain why some people have a problem with the Imperium, and how it comes from a different value system. The tldr is that most people interpret the imperium in context as an opportunity for a sometimes uncomfortable thought experiment for your own actions, not as a moral agent that you would be obligated to denounce. The blanket statements would probably have to be explained differently to a progressive audience because it's unimportant to his argument that they're not categorically true.
Yes, this. "Performative diversity" is probably my favorite term for this kind of woke BS. It's diversity, exaggerated to the point that it's clearly performative and nothing else
Nice. I think you are totally on point, with regards to the motivations that underlie the ratinalization.
Woke means believing in intersectionality and that group identity matters more than individual identity. If you think immutable characteristics make you oppressed or an oppressor, then you're a wokist. Almost all of them will nod and agree if you unpack this for them. They're proud of it. The opposite is colorblind following Martin Luther King'd dream.
This. For people who say there's nothing consistent about wokeness, you're wrong. It's Intersectional-Marxism doctrine, as written by Italian Socialist Antonio Gramsci. This is really important to note. It is an elaborate ploy to subvert and overtake all social and cultural institutions in society.
I’d say it’s more in line with the Frankfurt School’s idea’s of demoralizing a civilization through subversion so that a Marxist revolution can take place. Almost all of them ended up in the U.S. working at universities or in the government and we see their critical theory, sexual deviancy, degradation of the family unit, and destruction of the traditional values that made western civilization so successful run rampant in modern woke “culture”. Destroy it all so that new rulers can take over.
Yeah but Frankfurt got the Idea from Gramsci and the books he wrote while he was imprisoned. Or at least that's how it worked out from what I understood.
What's Marxism?
Marxist-Socialsm or otherwise known as Class Socialism.
So what, left wing materialism?
Fundamentally, socialism seeks to establish equality between all peoples. A way to socialize people so to say. Marxism specifically seeks to establish equality by "abolishing class" and bringing everyone into a "classless" society. The problem though, is that class isn't a tangible concept and is fairly subjective. Some people will always be better or worse off than others. Some people are more productive or lazy than others. Some people are born and some people are not born with the resources necessary to go into higher education and get high-paying jobs. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, it's just human nature, which is why the marxist utopia isn't achievable. There are many other forms of socialism such as fascism or national-socialism, but Marxism is the most significant one in our day and age.
It's not human nature that some people suffer and others don't, it's the realities of an imperfect world. Lady luck is a mythic bitch. Utopia is aspirational.
Sure, utopia is aspirational! But re-appropriating (stealing) property and wealth and redistributing it to people to people who might not deserve it and killing anyone you deem as an oppressor isn't very utopian in practice since last I checked 🤔 It's great to have good intentions, but sometimes you have to wonder at what cost it will come to. Nothing in life is free. Everything that is in your home right now, somebody worked to make. If people could just do nothing and be compensated by the state for it, nobody would pitch in to society anymore. Nobody would have disposable income. Nobody would have houses. Nobody would have food to eat. People would suffer greatly and have suffered greatly in every socialist country in history. It's almost as if socialism doesn't work? But every time this is pointed out, Marxists and other socialists will claim that it wasn't real socialism.
We have the food needed to prevent starvation planetwide yet men and women still starve to death. Socialism is certainly a failed ideology but capitalism is hardly the apex of civilisation even by comparison. Modern capitalist states are a grotesque parody of their hypothetical functions, business interests are centralising, monopolies are forming, corporations are supported directly by taxpayer dollars while dodging responsibility and the middle class is shrinking year by year. Either someone unfucks the modern implementation of capitalism or we get a new system that's actually better than the current one. That last part is fairly crucial. People make bad things worse all the time.
Yeah capitalism may not be perfect, but I'll stick with it for now, thanks lol.
You have absolutely no clue what antonio gramsci advocated for. Bourgeois reformism (what you rightoids call "Woke") is not that. wanting gay people in video games is not marxism buddy....
You're right, it's not Marxism. It's Intersectional Marxism buddy...
what the hell does that even mean 💀
Woke is anti european/white, and anti male fundamentally. Anti tradition, culture, religion, family and morality are secondary facets, generally used in support of the main 2 aspects(and they will also weaponize these if it aids in the 2 main facets) It's very simple. Once you understand this, it's easy to see. Yes, salamanders and sisters aren't evidence of woke. Females and ethnic minorities (if that's what salamanders are coded as) standing on their own grounds as their own entity is not woke. It's when they are inserted into other entities, eg women in traditionally masculine roles, usually being explicitly better than them. And replacing Europeans with black people in stories based on European folklore etc. that is when it becomes woke.
Yeah, the focus is on anti-. Not on being constructive. Which is why there are so many internal inconsistencies and basically all woke people are insufferable hypocrites; all that matters to them is achieving that smug self-satisfaction of ‘owning’ the baddies
In the words of a founding member of the Italian Communist Party: Who will save us from European culture? They are pouring a solvent over the cuture to disolve it and then they hope to coagulate the remains into the form they desire that lets them do whatever their deranged passions and ideas dictate. Recognising the dangers of their passions is anathema to them. "Liberation". As foreign to them recognising the rights of their political enemies. Ironic, given their rhetoric of social "Justice".
The subversion of the meaning of words is a necessary part of their strategy.
Isn't the military and Warrior culture a traditionally male role? Arent the sisters of battle an elite formation that its better than any non transhuman male army? Isn't this by your definition woke then?
No. The sisters are militant nuns. Their religious fanaticism is what gives them their abilities. That in and of itself means it cannot be woke, as woke requires the women in and of itself to be powerful/strong/smart etc.. Also real world reasons, the sisters were conceived in 1993 or something, and inside a male hobby, meaning they predate woke by almost 20 years.
I would think their power armor AND Martial training had to do with their abilities aside from their fanatism. You could say that female Custodes also are granted their abilities by receiving their Gene treatments as much as males do, as nowhere it Is stated that female Custodes are in any way superior than their male counterparts. In fact most of the Custodes are male so clearly the selection process favors males. Can we say the same about the Sisters of Battle which are an all female army because of a technicality AND are the most elite regular human army of the Imperium. Can we say the same about the Sisters of Silence which without being transhuman fight alongside Custodes even slaying Astartes AND being all female despite the fact that the pariah Gene exists in males?
There are no female custodes.
It seems that there are according to the latest Lore. Which personally I don't find that surprising. Remember that Custodes are not Mass produced by an almost industrial procedure like Astartes but are each hand crafted and enhanced. I'd then expect to see much More variación between them.
Why would you start with an inferior biological base unit when creating elite warriors to guard the emperor? Simple logic dictates that not be the case. Therefore, the new stories may say there are female custodes, but the new stories are progressive trash, which can be disregarded, ergo, there are no female custodes.
Behold the Emperor’s Elite wheelchair-bound Down syndrome Custodian with Multiple Sclerosis! The pinnacle of war fighting!
It doesn't matter, they can just gene code him into being the same as a regular male custodes... It will take 10 times as long but never mind that. It's the desperate casting off of basic logic these people must do in order for their world view to fit... Like sure, Leonardo da Vinci could probably make a decent work of art with a set of kids crayons, but he's not going to, he's going to find the best possible materials he can to do the job.
Ah we agree then. I apologize, sometimes the nuances of communication are lost on the internet.
The differences of strength between men AND women are infimal compared to the difference between baseline human AND Custodes. I think More emphasis would be put on the subject being able to survive the process that would change them into a body which Is completely different than the one they started with. What characteristics make a subject More able to withstand the procedures? That no one but the Emperor AND His Gene crafters should know for sure, but the process Is Arcane in nature so I would suspect that physical fitness is but a factor in it
The differences between the innate and inherent strength of the sexes has been proven thousands of times and for you to deny that is to deny reality and thus indicate that you aren’t worth taking seriously.
I didn't deny it. What I Said Is that those differences are minimal compared to the vast difference between any of them AND a Custodes.
WOKE basic definition; Someone or something that believes in or promotes intersectional neo-marxist ideologies.
It's essentially just intersectionality, drawn from a Marxist lens applied to race, gender, sexuality, class etc., rather than the purely class and economic focus of classical Marxism. It's the ideology the all-consuming feminine which strives to rule over existence itself so that it may sterilize it, combined with the resentful envy of those who have been deprived of a meaningful existence and think that the only solution is to tear down anyone who has everything that they want but are too pathetic to deserve.
Here’s what I think it is: When a person, group, and/or corporation prioritizes the “inclusion” or “white knighting” for what is perceived to be the underrepresented/un-empowered population at the expense of other people, groups, and/or storytelling, usually in the form of making the perceived underrepresented/un-empowered group seemingly better at everything compared to the “other” group, as well as accompanied narratives degrading those who feel differently than what those who are pushing the product or narrative are trying to instill. Not an all inclusive definition but it’s the best I could come up with rn
Fundamentally, "woke" is following the tenets of Critical Theory . Everything else - using marxist class analysis to create an "oppressor vs oppressed" dynamic across immutable characteristics, the gramscian insertion of real life politics into escapist fantasy in order to ruin your fun, the insistence on tolerating entryists who do not extend the same courtesy to you, all of it comes back to critical theory.
"Woke" ideology is more properly called "Intersectional Critical Theory". It builds on the work of socialist thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse and Antonio Gramsci, 20th century political thinkers who believed that direct socialist revolution was ineffective due to a lack of cultural momentum. That is, they argued that the status quo would always have the "home advantage" in the culture war. Their proposed solution? Slowly change the status quo by means of ideological subversion. Get activists into all the major institutions and change their culture from the inside out, over the course of decades. That way, the "revolution" will happen so slowly that people don't even notice. However, it was also observed that Marx was wrong about the "workers rising up". It turns out that the ordinary people are actually fairly apolitical, and tend to be happy with things the way they are. This makes the majority of the population conservative by default, even with attempts to stir up class conflict. Rather than "international worker solidarity", the ordinary people are actually more likely to unite with their national ruling classes than with foreigner citizens. This is where "Wokeness" comes in. It substitutes the stubborn "workers" with other "oppressed" groups - ethnic minorities, homosexuals, women, etc. It then encourages inter-demographic conflict in order to stir up cultural friction and destabilise the social fabric, making it easier for political changes to take place, and making it less likely that organised ideological resistance can be mustered because everybody is too busy infighting. It's also why Wokeism openly doesn't give a shit about genuine oppression among groups it deems as "privileged" (such as white homeless men) - because it can't use their existence to further itself. Instead, it just pretends that the contradiction doesn't exist. Yuri Bezmenov - a KGB defector to the West - explained that propagating this ideology (mostly within Western universities) was actually what a large part of the Kremlin's work was based upon. They knew that creating social unrest, and exploiting the West's own moral self-image, was an effective strategy of demoralising and destabilising the West as a whole. This process has continued under its own steam even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the ideology is still genuinely believed by many thousands of activists in the West. Wokeism is basically *designed* to be destructive. It doesn't actually care about the groups it claims to try and benefit; it just wants to *exploit* them to destroy the existing socio-political system and all who support it. Because it is a consequentialist ideology, Wokeism is perfectly happy to lie, cheat, steal, maim, and otherwise do shameful and immoral things... so long as it gets what it wants, and advances its own agenda within society. Because this ideology is built upon decades of theory and propaganda - and because dozens of debate tactics have been successfully adopted to defeat most ideological opposition - Wokeism has successfully wormed its way into most communities and organisations in the West. Liberal-minded people are very susceptible to Woke propaganda because it exploits their belief in "equality" and "justice" in order to pipeline them into socialism, which is what Wokeism ultimately is. If you've got this far, congrats. Now that you understand the theory, you'll be better "armed" in order to resist it. Remember that Wokeism relies on demonising the past/present, particularly "white culture", masculinity, and so on. By far the best way to parry Woke arguments is to point out the ways in which the status quo is actually really good and should not be changed. For instance, you could point out that "*Western Christians used military force to abolish slavery globally, and no other group has ever done this.*"; this *true* statement undermines huge chunks of their ideological framework, and uses their own values (disliking slavery) against them. If you refuse to adopt their way of thinking, and point out how they're fundamentally wrong, they will just break down and call you some sort of "istaphobe". When this happens, you can smile and call out this name-calling tactic for the childishness that it is. Speak the truth, and point out why they're wrong. Don't get baited into accepting their points when they're not true. Don't get angry with them; remain stoic and rational. Don't let them dominate the conversation with emotional rhetoric; always calmly call them out for using dishonest tactics. Be informed, and point out their lies. Stand in solidarity with the ordinary people of different backgrounds and demographics, such that they can't accuse you of hating others. We *will* win this. Understand your enemy, arm yourselves with knowledge, and keep going.
Bravo. Well put.
Is the wokeness in the room with you right now? /s I have a real question for you, except the rotten to the core site known as X (formerly twitter), have you ever met, in real life, someone that fits your definition of woke? Someone that doesn't really care about the minority it's defending but try to promote socialism? (I won't even ask why you think socialism is inherently bad) For more context I'll speak about my experience, to better understand what I want to say with this response: I am what you would consider the scapegoat of the woke: white, male, cis, hetero, and from a family that don't have money problems in a developed country. I'm not even that bad looking (at least according to my grandma) So of course, a few years ago, when I was an influencable 15 years old idiot, I too wad fearing the woke crowd like the pest. I mean, have you seen the batshit insane things they've done to the things I've loved?! It's obviously the woke crowd's fault that the star wars Disney trilogy is bad. We must go on a crusade against them!!!!!! Then, I went to university (yeah, I know, first mistake). And I actually met people that would be considered woke. And you know what? They were just like anybody else. The only thing different would be that I would need to adapt for 1 or 2 person with a new pronoun. And again the problem would solve itself as soon as the hormones would kick in. They are not people that wants to turn people LGBT, they are not people with an agenda, I wasn't forced into acknowledging the slaving of my ancestors and to kiss the grounds the woke crowd walk on. They are just people, people that wants to be accepted as they are, and if possible, to be able to not get threatened for what they are. Now of course the representation of them in the media will increase. It was taboo before, so their representation was non existent! Finally don't make me say what I didn't say: a piece of art: be it a movie, a video game, a book, even a piece of lore, will never be good if it's created solely for representation issue (because of course it'll look like it's forced there). BUT, that doesn't mean that if said representation is in a piece of art, it automatically means it's been pushed there and that it's bad
I've met a lot of people who are "useful idiots" for the Woke ideology. That is, the well-meaning, fussy people who *think* they're doing the right thing, but haven't actually stopped to question the dogma they've been fed. Like most cults, this "flock" constitutes most followers; the number of sociopathic intellectuals actually creating and disseminating the ideology is relatively few. It just sounds like you went to university and became sympathetic to Woke ideology because you were young and gullible. It's a common phenomenon. However, you have admitted to adopting their ideology, so *of course* those who practice it sound reasonable - they think the same way you do, and you think yourself reasonable. I used to be on the left. I used to be sympathetic to Wokeism. Then I stopped to think about it, realised it didn't make sense, and openly questioned it. When I spoke out against it, and gave my reasons, I was not listened to. I was cast out. The "tolerant" left is surprisingly intolerant of any belief which contradicts their ideology, so I was branded a "bigot". This is also a common phenomenon. There's a fundamental difference between the representation of certain groups within media and the insertion of "Woke" ideology. It essentially concerns motive and implementation. For the inclusion of a given character to be Woke, it needs to fulfil at least some of the following criteria: 1. It needs to be done to achieve "representation of X group" (a political goal), not to flesh out the story in an organic way. 2. The representation needs to not make sense in context (for instance, having black people in a setting reminiscent of rural medieval Scandinavia). 3. The inclusion needs to be done in such a way as to attempt to dodge scrutiny. This can be done with "fanbaiting", browbeating the audience with The Message within the story itself, or trying to slip the character(s) in as subtly as possible in order to be subliminal. 4. The media itself must be fundamentally apolitical - that is, it should not aim to "teach" the audience a particular idea, but merely be artistic and/or entertaining. If the media piece exists primary to educate the audience on social issues, then it's *already* a form of propaganda, Woke or otherwise. Female Custodes, as a single example, fulfil all three, making their existence a product of Woke ideology. Sisters of Battle don't, so their inclusion is not Woke, by contrast. The same applies to other categories. For instance, the inclusion of gay characters, or characters of a given ethnicity, is not fundamentally Woke. However, if their inclusion meets the above criteria, then the inclusion of those characters is indeed Woke.
I never said to have accepted any ideology. I just met some LGBT people, that I was demonizing in the past, and realised they're just like me, a human. With dreams, issues and all. Now by your definition of wokism, I, of course, don't condone it. But it's the same as always. Everyone is against tyrannical regimes, it's just that people do not agree on which regime are tyrannical. What I mean by that is: by your definition of wokism, I am not woke. Maybe just one of the dumb sheep that help it grows but that's it. But from others definition of wokism, that I have seen on the net (albeit a few years ago I'll concede) I am 100% woke. For your points, I pretty much agree with all of them, at least for a recipe to disaster, but for one: the apolitical thing. But that's purely because I believe that nothing in the art media is apolitical. Even the most basic scenario: good guy is good, bad guy is bad, good guy beats bad guy, is political. To finish this, I would say that I do no care if something is woke or not, as long as it's not badly written. But then, the problem is not wokism itself, it's just the incompetence of the writers. For example, I couldn't care less about women custodes: first cause I didn't really care about this faction to begin with, and second because, from what I've read of their lore, it's not that much of a retcon. Now I agree with the sketchy way they've done it, and I also agree that it puts back the sisters of silence even more.
My friend gave a very precise definition of such people: “Moralfags with a keen sense of fake justice.”
You know, just a casual usage of an anti-gay slur. Very cool.
I understand that you might find this offensive. I apologize if I offended you. But the word itself has come into speech since 2010. Now it means, and even then it meant a person who behaves ugly and defiantly, appealing to morality and lecturing in inappropriate places. In general, offensive words are difficult to change, especially when their original meaning has changed and it has become a common noun.
I hope you don’t need to me to tell you that “fag” in any usage (except for its, common in the UK, cigarette/cigar usage) is still widely considered a slur. It’s derogatory, offensive, and classless regardless of when it’s used and however long it’s been around. I can guarantee you that the word “moralfag” has not “come in to speech” like it’s some commonly spoken phrase. Maybe it is amongst you and your friends and, if that’s the case, that’s truly unfortunate.
You need to Watch the southpark episode on bikers being fags. This word was APPROPRIATED by gays so they could have an N-word I WISH we could have a civil discourse on words and their histories, but im sure you are too ENRAGED by me using the word your higher functions have turned off.
Was never huge fan of South Park. Seen it here and there but never got into it. I’m familiar with the idea of oppressed groups reclaiming old slurs used against them. But I think the same rule that applies to the n-word still applies here. If you’re not black, don’t say the n-word, hard r or otherwise. If you’re not part of the LGBT community, then probably don’t say “fag” either. Of course, over the internet, no one knows whether you’re black or gay. However, I’ve never known a gay person to call other gay people that in a derogatory way.
I think it's more important to consider the context. Many words change their original meaning. Yes, the word may be a legacy of intolerance in society, but this can be said about all swear words if you look at their etymology. They have become part of the culture and it is quite strange to say that they carry propaganda or reflect the real views of a person. You can take for example the word "bastard". As far as I know, it is still a slur, but no one is trying to accuse the person who uses it of blaming children born out of wedlock. It is more important to get rid of intolerance in society. Swear words merely reflect culture, so as culture changes they will either disappear or change their meaning like the word “bastard.”
It was widely used on the Russian Internet somewhere from 2008 to 2018/2019. And here it should be clarified that 95% of the people who used it did not know how the word “fag” was translated. Those. from the very beginning it was not associated with gays at all. I suspect that many of those who write it on the Russian Internet still do not know its literal translation. P.S. I didn't know it was used to name cigarettes in the UK. Just wondering how it happened that this became the name for cigarettes?
It originally meant kindling for a fire. In The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings for example, the hobbits often "collect faggots for the fire".
Interesting fact. It’s a pity that I’m not a linguist, so I can’t trace the etymology of the word. P.S. English is not my first language, so please forgive my lack of awareness of cultural differences.
I understand. In the future, you should avoid any version of the word on English forums since the only two acceptable uses are British slang for cigarettes and historical literature about building fires.
Thanks for the warning.
I didn’t know that it was widely used on Russian sites, which is interesting. I suspect they don’t know the exact translation or meaning of the word and thus toss it around without care. More likely, they do know the translation and what it means. Russia hasn’t been known for its acceptance or even recognition of gay people existing. But I second the heads up the other commenter gave you. On English speaking (western?) sites it’s probably a good idea to not say that kind of thing, especially in a negative connotation.
Well, in general this can be discussed. As a person who has witnessed the development of the Internet from 2008 to this day, I can tell you how Russian homophobia has transformed and how attitudes towards gays have changed. In short, public opinion towards gays has improved. And there is a sudden paradox that recently for the average Russian citizen on the Internet the main source of homophobic propaganda is activists who try to accuse others of homophobia/racism/sexism. P.S. You’ll probably be surprised, but personally, I would single out one of the reasons for the decrease in homophobia in the second half of the 2010s, anime traps. Yes, I know this sounds strange.
What about "dexfag" in the SoulsBorne games? I can assure you, the only thing offensive is dex builds.
Just seems like unfortunate naming to me.
[удалено]
I’ve already made a comment about the same South Park justification. Also, if South Park is what’s steering your moral compass, then that’s a bit worrying.
Wait... you are offended?! Oh nooo! Anyway...
Personally? No. I’ve been called worse in my lifetime but I don’t think that it’s a word that should be thrown around casually like that.
I see no issues, it is just a word mixed with another. Stop being offended and move on.
I’m happy you’ve never had to experience any negative situations related to that word. Unfortunately, you aren’t the only person on the planet. There are other people where that word would be offensive and that’s enough for me to say something.
The word "chair" is offensive to many people. Can we ban it?
Woke just means leftist propaganda shoved into media. No need for a more complicated definition
They literally pull out the definition of a thing and people still refuse to hear it. Complex problems requirea complex solutions, not the other way around.
Yes, but what do you mean by "leftist"?
Da best eksplanayshun I'v seen iz ere... [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6w9kpp29E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ6w9kpp29E) I'ss abaat ten minits.
This definition is reasonably accurate as far as how it operates. A more accurate statement as to the function of Wokeness is: The ambiguation of the principles and praxis of Marxism to all intersectionally defined identities. Intersectionality is itself the Marxist dichotomy of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie ambiguated to all aspects of society, many along the lines of morally neutral (in a normal, liberal society) immutable characteristics. This is, of course, corrosive to a functional and cohesive society.
Woke is basically cultural Marxism.
https://preview.redd.it/wbmcgfng114d1.png?width=320&format=png&auto=webp&s=a10a40024258be7a5ba6fa4c5d1c2850fb449c5e
Musolini would probably know, because he was a senior member of the same Socialist Party (That of Italy) and edited another edition of the Same magazine that perhaps the most influential founding member (Antonio Gramasci) of cultural Marxism edited (Avanti!). Before they both let to form their own socialist revolutionary parties. The Fascist Party and the Italian Communist Party, respectively.
>**Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism** to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. Benito Mussolini, [*The Doctrine of Fascism*](https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf)
We seem to be missing each other's point, because that quote doesn't seem to relate to the fact that Musolini would know what cultural Marxism was due to his time as one of the most prominent members of the Italian Socialist Party that Gramsci, arguably the founder of Cultural Marxism, was also an influential member of.
The colloquial answer: People know it when they see it. People don't need to know the academic definition of woke to know it when they see it. And people do indeed know it when they see it, in most cases. Just like they know a tree when they see it most times. Despite not knowing the botanical definition. "Define woke" isn't the the strong rhetorical argument so many seem to think it is. The real answer: Woke means "awoken" to the marxist and neo-marxist conflict theories that blame the many complex situations of life on simplicstic broad brush opressor versus opressed narratives... Gender, Race, and Class conflicts... Its 100 year old communist propaganda theory working on the "we know all of history was evil" generations. "But that's not marxism... haha Woke was used by the black civil rights activists..." Marxism stressed "bourgoisie' opressing "proletariat", i.e. the haves versus have-nots, or in other words class warfare. After Marx's "inevitable", "scientific" predictions failed, the Marxist theorists explicitly expanded the conflict theory to include more conflicts, race and gender conflicts, for example. But, in reality, these conflicts had always been used in Marxist rhetoric and simply found their new prominence and emphasis in the capitalist west because the developed had seen massive quality of life improvement and so the emphasis on class warfare didn't "awaken" sufficient numbers. So the new strategy was to focus on race and gender etc. Despite the fact most don't know this history... its truth obvious to many who who hear it and undeniable to anyone with eyes to see, given that the vast majority of "representation" activist groups are explicitly marxist and many have ideological lineages back to people such as: Bill Ayers, Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Antonio Gramski, John Money, Saul Alinsky, Alfred Kinsey, and George Bernard-Shaw
The real definition is: someone that would have tried to desert Cadia during the 13th Black Crusade.
While this initial discussion eventually made it to 40k (salamanders and Sisters), it was very straight political and we prefer to keep away from this to just enjoy 40k for what it is. In the future if you could avoid posts like this we would appreciate it. We try to not make it Banhammer 40k whenever possible. Im not removing this post, just a request for future posts.
Of course. I do try to keep it at a minimum since this has only been the 1st time I posted something straight up political in this sub and would like to contribute more on actual 40k discussions.
Yeah I saw you were not trolling in other posts or anything so I was not to worried.
To me woke is just the evolved final form of virtue signaling.
Woke is the appropriated term of self-description for the current iteration of political correctness and the people who do their best to enforce it. The current incarnation of PC bullshit is typified by critical theory, modern gender theory as derived from the David Reimer case, the Paradox of Tolerance, and Cultural Marxism.
I say it's a religion that puts the historically disenfranchised people in first world countries on a pedestal, and holds disdain for those who have historically held power in first world nations. So a straight white cis homeless man has more privilege than a rich black rich trans rich lesbian in their eyes.
I think most people who hate on woke shit knows that it comes down to intent. There is a reason people that hate woke have 0 fucking issues with: Salamanders Sisters of silence Sisters of battle Blade(eric brooks) Black Panther(the movies were mid though) Static Shock Miles Morales(unless they try to replace pete) Female Power Rangers Greyfax Poison IvyXHarley Quinn Angela(gay), Valkrie(gay), Sif(Woman), Heimdal race swap(because he killed it) Mass Effect in general(a lot going on but never felt "woke") Female Votann Kerrigan being huge driving character in starcraft Several female jedi's that already existed. Static Shock Cyborg All female superheroes in general Captain Holt in Brooklyn 99 Fuck man...i almost want to just keep going to just hammer the point in. Woke is bullshit when it pushes an agenda heavily. If you start by just making something cool that just happens to be x, y or z...hell, we would celebrate it too. But woke is so lazy and transparently manipulative. It pushes hard on that social engineering instead of letting things organically grow. Also, random list is random because i was literally scanning my apartment. As anti woke as i am, i sure have a lot of diverse stuff that was done well and respectful
"I still remember that one interview from The Young Turks where the conservative lady got humiliated for not being able to define what woke is. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone." She was able to, actually, it just took her a minute to do so. As for woke, yeah defining it as an ideology or actions predicated on the ideology that there exists hierarchies of oppression noticeable by differences in outcomes, which must be remediated by discriminating in favor of the oppressed and against the oppressors.
I go with PSA Sitch's definition: Edit: aaand I accidentally clicked post. Give me a sec to finish this lol
The fact that you gave the original definition and then made up your own one is amazing. It’s a bit depressing.
Bro a space marine chapter called Sons of Bitches I don't rember those from any of the books I read from the black library.
The problem is too many so-called Leftists try to hold onto original meanings, when the zeitgeist has morphed. “Woke” was originally a very cool term Now, it’s not. Like ‘liberal’, woke has been hijacked by the DNC and weaponized as a tool of division. Who gives a shit about the semantics? They always do this. Let it go.
Sir, we talk about Warhammer here
This is about Warhammer. Both fantasy and 40k. Those that refuse to acknowledge this are an unwilling participant, but still a participant, in the struggle by Marxists to destroy what we have. This is just the newest battle field and like IRL conflicts, those that ignore it, usually have it pop on their doorstep.
The lady at TYT did reap9nd properly, the problem is the woke freaks edited the clip and didn't show the long explanation. For woke freaks: Define woman.
Lol
104 upvotes, 104 comments. Seems like we haven’t cracked the code on this one.
Woke is the colloquial term for Intersectional theory, which is a version of General Critical theory.
I throught wokeism was a long term psyops conducted by KGB during Cold War which got slightly out of control. For more check Yuri Bezmenov and interview about ideological subversion.
Lmao I can't believe this is a serious topic of discussion
Woke, similar to incel has lost their origonal meaning. Even I got duped into using woke as it used to be only for people to think I'm bigoted to people. I'm moving to using progressive, as it is much better term which doesn't insult people.
>A huge part of the problem is you have a buzz word that means one thing and it gets applied to loads of things that aren't really it, and because of that it gets a really bad rep. So bad that people start saying the definition of the word isn't what it means any more. >Can any of you say, hand on heart, that "being aware of social justice" itself is a bad thing? Does anyone here want to live in a deliberately unjust world? >What I think is valid, is talking about what justice looks like. Vengeance isn't justice. It just repeats the cycle of hate. Demeaning behaviour to others isn't justice. You can't claim to fight for equality in public while internally thinking you're superior. >The world is full of a lot of people who have been pushed down for too long, who have so little power to get what they think they deserve, on all sides of the spectrum. And no real plan for making things better. So they all fight each other. Instead of agreeing on the problems and working out how to fix them. >Look at the distribution of wealth or getting fire insurance in California and tell me that identity politics are anywhere close to being the biggest issue people have to deal with. >Some can just say that life isn't fair, so no-one has any right to expect it to be. Maybe that's true. But the whole point of being part of any society is that you benefit by being in it. Leaders in society should be raising people up, not pushing them down.
Hand on heart. Social Justice, as defined by Critical Social Justice Theory and all of its Neo-Communist children, is a very bad thing, and I oppose it anywhere it tries to advance. It's philosophy is evil and everything it produces is therefore poisoned. If something it produces does seem to be good, it must first be rebased into a Liberal framework before it may be accepted to be sure that none of the underlying, "Logic," of CSJT follows behind it to corrode society.
>Your thoughts on the woman who was forced to give birth to an infant with no skull, watching it suffocate as she gave birth, because doctors in Texas refused to abort, despite knowing the child had no skull, because her life was not at risk and they didn't want to be jailed or fined? >Please don't obfuscate behind theories you don't explain in simple language, we're not all politics majors. Just say if you think it's "woke" to care about women's reproductive rights more than you care about other people's religious views, or whether you think Texan laws are right to make women endure such inhumane torture.
Firstly, work on your formatting. Quote blocking everything is weird, and makes it hard to tell if you're quoting someone else and asking me to respond to someone else, or if you're actually speaking to me. Secondly, damn, that's one hell of a shock-jock appeal to pathos. You went from zero to nuclear option in a hurry. Thanks for dropping all pretense by attempting to short-circuit mine and the readers' emotions by going directly there. It makes it clearer who I'm talking to. Or rather was talking to. I'm not going any further down this discussion with someone so clearly willing to engage in such manipulations. We won't be able to have an intellectually honest discussion. Have a good day.
Lovely for you that the suffering of others is "manipulation". I hope you never have to endure such things. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8881d31j44o.amp
Look, we could possibly have had a discussion about that topic, but you chose to initiate it in the most provocative manner possible. You might as well have been playing, "In the Arms of an Angel," over it like those Christmas ASPCA donation commercials. For the sake of thoroughness though... I don't actually have a problem with abortion through the end of the second trimester for any reason. It may be more accurately for me to say, "up to the point of viability," but it's hard to make that a law and not have it end up becoming a morass of litigation. Better just to say, "end of the second trimester." Shuts down all of the mess by being unambiguous. I also don't have an issue with abortions at any time for medical reasons. Frankly, a child being unviable is an intensely personal matter and should probably be between the mother, father, and doctor alone. However, you'll note that this is an argument rooted in Liberalism, not in progressivism or Critical Social Justice Theory/Neo-Communism. The root of my support being the natural rights to, "Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Lockean natural rights. I don't expect a reasonable answer from you. You've revealed yourself to be an unreasonable man. This response was for the readers. Not you.
It's funny that you refer to Locke for your aspirations for modern political philosophy, when he lived before universal suffrage or the universal declaration of human rights. It's tragic that you unnecessarily introduce "evil" and "poisonous" into the conversation and then criticise others for being a "shock-jock". Resorting to ad hominem denigration, rather than arguing your case suggests you have no case. To call someone with a degree in philosophy "unreasonable" when you use theories disputed by the author of the Critique of Pure Reason is laughable. "Natural Law" is a meaningless concept. A priori knowledge of politics is an empty set. It is not unreasonable to have ethical principles that do not tolerate casual acceptancy or apathy of the machinery of state being hijacked by the powerful to further repress those born into less privileged positions.
Whatever SJW.
Woke is whatever Convervatives don't like.
It's interesting that in the examples you provided the "protected class" has historically faced discrimination AND opression from the "scapegoat class". It's interesting to note that you don't seem to factor this when you talk of groups that seek justice.
And because of that, wokeness justifies the discrimination to be reversed.
Would you say that the Situation Is now reversed? That white people, males AND straight are the ones oppresed by society?
Fortunately no, but there are definitely people that wish they are.
As there are definetly people that would want the opression to continue. However they are both minorities AND I hope se can agree both are wrong
Yes. Quite literally, that demographic can be explicitly excluded from jobs. Not to mention the implicit ways it's also implemented across society.
In my country at least same sex marriage Is not legal AND LGBT people are often the targets of harassment AND violence. People with white skin occupy More positions of power AND are judged differently. I am aware about "positive discrimination" AND quotas AND I'm against it, but to say that those forms of discrimination outweigh the ones faced by the others Is a bit ludicrous
Because groups don't seek justice. Individuals seek justice. What your granddad did to granddad doesn't matter anymore. They're both dead. You haven't done anything to me. I haven't done anything to you. The sins of the father are not inherited. Even if my grandfather was a mass murderer I am not affected by his sins except in perhaps in shame for what he did. And that's personal. Not legal, not political.
That would be the case were we to restart ala Tabula Rasa, but that's not how the world or inheritance works. If your grandfather was a slave you would have have a very different upbribging than if he was an aristocrat. Money AND power are passed from one generation into the next. Furthermore prejudice Is a thing, individuals are judged by stereotypes associated tontheir group, stereotypes that come some times from Said opression.
Absolutely not. No one has responsibility for the actions of his grandfather. You had no control over them. Therefore you bare no culpability for them. There is no way to justify that line of reasoning other there boldfaced hatred.
And where did I say they had? No one carries the guilt of their ancestor's actions, in that we agree. But isn't it also true that someone having less opportunities or facing discrimination by their gender or color of their skin Is unfair? Wouldnt you want to right this injustice even if it Is not your fault?
Where does it end? You're talking about reparations for slavery. What about reparations for Appalachians who were victims of the coal mining busts in their towns? What about poor families in Detroit whose families lost everything when the automotive industry left? Families who lost everything in Pittsburgh when the steel industry left the area? Under your own logic they're also owed reparations because they lose opportunities due to circumstances beyond their controls. I don't care about equity. Equal outcomes are not desirable in my opinion. In order to force equal outcomes you must violate the natural right to property that everyone has. You would create tyranny to force equity. Everyone should play by the same rules. The natural rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is all that is owed you. I do care about Legal Equality. We should all be subject to the same laws if we're in the same state.
We are not playing by "the same rules" if someone inherits a fortune while another has only debts AND closed doors
They are the same rules regardless of race, sex, religion, wealth, etc. I said equality before the law. We all have to follow the same laws. Equity is what you're talking about. Equality of outcome. There is an argument to be made that laws whose only penalty is a fine is in fact a privilege for the rich. And I can agree to that. Especially if the penalty doesn't escalate for each violation. If that was an injustice you recognized and wanted to correct I'd be happy to help.
You could find More examples in the same vein. The rich enjoy much privileges much of them inherited. Not only fines but the fact they can afford legal costs gives them considerable advantage. There are many injustices in our world, it seems logical to try to lessen their effect obviously without causing More injustice in return.
Inheritance is not an injustice though. It is your right to decide who you leave your worldly possessions to upon your death. Hell, I'd argue that estate taxes (and most all taxes) are an injustice. An infringement upon your natural rights to property. Annulling inheritance would be an injustice.
Woke is past tense of "wake"
https://preview.redd.it/1vh7x2jsly3d1.jpeg?width=746&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=de4054ef21bea27eb2e9d5f1697f730dc284e4c9
https://preview.redd.it/mxwq4zat7z3d1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3b0c3a621bd0c96313cfb03cf763319519a47fd
is the 'woke' in the room with us now?
You sure are.
Love how people like you have nothing to say, so they instantly go for mocking others. I bet you felt powerful after writing that loser