slug.com slug.com
8 9

I had a thought this morning that I'd like to present to the group for discussion, because I cannot reconcile it, pre-caffeine:

How is it that woke progressives will tell you in all seriousness that your skin color - an immutable characteristic - defines who you are, what you should believe, and what your life's narrative is, and that if you disagree with this assertion, you're a bad person...

...and then in the next breath will tell you in all seriousness that your chromosomes & sex organs - also immutable characteristics - do NOT define who you are, what you should believe, and what your life's narrative is, and that if you disagree with this assertion, you're a bad person?

Alysandir 7 May 27
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Hello. Where are you getting this narrative? Do you have any woke progressives in your neighbourhood? If you do, talk to them and ask them if this is really what they believe.

Naomi Level 8 May 29, 2021

I can only say the same thing to you that I said in my exchange with JacksonNought below: woke progressives embrace critical race theory and they embrace transgenderism, both to the point that they will not brook dissenting opinions.

Critical race theory claims that we are our skin color first and foremost. That if you're a white person, that automatically means that you're a racist and can never NOT be a racist, all you can do is strive to be anti-racist to try to make up for your racism. And if you're black, you're oppressed, irrespective of whether you feel you are oppressed or even whether you are financially successful (to them, figures like LeBron James and Oprah are oppressed because they're black). And that if you happen to be black, but don't think the way other black people do, then you "aren't black enough," to the point where they will call a black person a white supremacist if he or she deviates far enough from what black people are "supposed" to believe. In short, critical race theory treats your skin color as a template for who you are and what you're supposed to believe and that's your "identity group."

Conversely, transgenderism holds that sex and gender are merely social constructs. That there is literally no difference between a woman and a transgender woman because the very nature of being a woman is predicated on whether you feel like a woman. They say with a straight face that cis men who refuse to date a woman with male genitalia are being misogynist, because that transwoman IS a woman and should be treated no differently. This includes transgenders being in the private spaces of the sex/gender they identify as well as being allowed to compete in competitive sports in the sex/gender they identify as. And if you argue that transwomen are NOT biologically the same as biological women, you get canceled, much like they tried to do with JK Rowling for daring to say publicly that biological sex is science.

So on the one hand, you have an ideology that posits that your skin color - something you can't change - defines who you are and what you should think, and another ideology that posits that your biological sex - something you can't change - doesn't define who you are and what you should think...and I'm trying to reconcile how one can believe both things at the same time and condemn anyone who doesn't.

I will also say that, if you are convinced that this is not what woke progressives believe, I can only suggest that you tell them that, because that's what they identify as. Hell, CRT drove the very use of "woke" as a socio-political term, as in "have been awoken to the systemic racism that oppresses black people."

@Alysandir Yeah, I get all that, but have YOU actually met any woke progressive person, I mean in the flesh in the real world? Don't know what it is like in America, but it is hard to find one in England because they are a small minority. Still, it is very important to interact with real people in the real world and acknowledge each other's opinions instead of via media and on the Internet. Otherwise, what you believe others believe, whether it is about skin colour, gender, climate change, whatsoever, is merely an assumption or a narrative propagated by political manipulators and stirrers.

@Naomi

Okay...I get what you're saying...but I also don't get what you're saying.

I can appreciate the sentiment of getting out and meeting people and hearing from them firsthand, face-to-face what it is they believe in. I do see the value in that.

What I'm having a little trouble with is this proposal that people who identify as woke progressives who say the things online that I keep reading about over and over and over again, do somehow not truly represent what woke progressives believe, which is WHY I need to seek them out and talk to them directly.

And the reason I'm struggling with that is: why would they lie? Why would they post online what they claim to believe, if they don't really believe it? Why would it be reasonable for me to assume that I'd get a different response from them if only I spoke with them in person? I mean, if you don't agree with something, why post it? Just don't say anything. You don't even have to denounce it.

All I'm really about here is trying to reconcile two ideas that seem to have heavy adoption among the woke progressive community, that seem to be at odds with each other. I am very big on consistency of thought - that is, I may not agree with what someone says, but if I can understand the logic behind what they're saying and it's consistent with other things they say - then I can at least make sense of it. In this example, we have one case where immutable characteristics define who you are, and another case where immutable characteristics DON'T define who you are, and there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason between the two, much less tolerance for discussing it.

And yes, I find it rather humorous, in addition to finding it perplexing. And also yes, I would love someone to explain this disconnect to me. Jackson couldn't, or chose not to.

1

Critical Race Theory is forwarded to bring equity. So they have redefined race as being an identity absent of the immutable aspects of race. They have also done this with gender even more so. There are so many different identities to invent and define with gender, I think we are up to about 62. The individual has a little more flexibility in choosing and defining his gender "identity". Especially if it is not white male cis-gendered.
Marxists have carefully crafted the term race though and they determine if someone is Black or White or Brown. Race is entirely a social construct. They have confused the terms race and racism. CRT will be forwarded as being the belief that racism is a social construct but we can't tell what racism is because they use the term race as a social construct. It's how they can say things like, "if you don't vote for me you ain't Black. If you are white you are a white supremacist and must denounce your whiteness, atone and self-flagellate. Women have to be feminists and wear the feminist label as defined by feminists. It's all identity politics which is an altered form of the term "profiling". Marxist word games to divide and conquer.

5

The woke left: Race is a social construct.
Also The woke left: your skin colour defines who you are

4

Because their ideology isn’t about finding truth it’s about dismantling the systems of power.

Hey you! Long time no see. Where have you been?! Welcome back!

7

Of course you're insightful and correct.

The nub of it isn't "how," it's "why."

Certainly we can ask ourselves how it is that so many purportedly sane people buy into this, but
it behooves us to ask Why. As well, the whole inconsistency is plain to see, so the "Why" of it being served up is a different animal.

It's an attack on anything that Is and Was---it is an attack on normalcy, on reality.

The Why of it is to keep rational people on Defense, to knock them on their heels, to gainsay reality so that the Left can fill that void. Reality is whatever they say it is.

Gaslighting on an extraordinary scale.

It also gives them license to behave like monkeys. 🙂

@wolfhnd
I'm guessing you've read "The Jungle Book."

3

Wow this is the dictionary definition of strawman.

You're welcome to explain it to me then. How is one immutable characteristic all-defining, but another one not defining at all?

And I'm not being sarcastic, either. If you can explain, I really want to hear it.

@JacksonNought in other words you don't have an answer to the hypocrisy. You can't deny it. You can't answer a simple question.
Your own response is the definition of strawman.

@Alysandir, @Tom81 do you not know what a strawman is?

You are saying "Progressives will tell you X but then also say Y, this is hypocrisy!" So you are claiming Progressives have a specific argument, one which is not an actual argument from Progressives, all so that you can take it down. That is literally a strawman.

@JacksonNought progressives don't have an argument (that would imply they have logic), they just like to argue. Two different things.
And you're still dodging the original question.

@Tom81 why would I answer the original question, when it is just made up?

Tom81's profile says he lives in Australia. But he has also claimed to currently live in Russia. Care to explain that? Can you answer this simple question?

@JacksonNought have never claimed that I live or have lived in Russia ever, but nice attempt at deflection... unless that was a lame attempt at humour. You got proof of your accusation?
And maybe you can explain what you mean by the original question being 'made up'. What's made up? All the incoherent rhetoric from your side?

@Tom81 you're dodging the question. You can't answer a simple question.

@JacksonNought how plainly can I put it so your simple mind can grasp it? re-read my response. Unlike you, I answered the question (in the first line). You just keep dodging and deflecting yours.

@Tom81 you are dodging the question. You say you live in Australia, but you also said you live in Russia. You are deflecting and dodging, explain how this is possible?

Yes, I made it up, but if you don't answer how this is possible then you are dodging the question.

@JacksonNought

So you are claiming Progressives have a specific argument, one which is not an actual argument from Progressives, all so that you can take it down. That is literally a strawman.

So what you're claiming is that the woke progressives - who supports CRT - do not push the narrative that we are all social groups defined by our immutable characteristics. That they do not say things like, "all white people are racist," or "black people who do not support BLM are white supremacists" because they are betraying what it means to black. That black celebrities - for example, the Seattle Seahawks' Russell Wilson - or black characters - such as Idris Elba's "Luther" - can be accused of being "not black enough" if they do not act or think in ways that are closely identified with being black. That we so identify with our skin color that terms like "blacklist" - which share no etymology with black as a "race" - are inherently offensive and must be removed from our lexicon.

And you are also claiming that the woke progressives - who support transgenderism - do not argue that sex is a social construct, that to be a woman is predicated not on your biology but what you identify as. That we need to replace terms like woman with "birthing person" because saying that one of the characteristics of being a women is the ability to give birth is offensive to women who are not biological. That feminists who do not support transwomen are TERFs who need to be shut down. That cis-men who do not want to date transwomen with biologically male sex organs are both misogynist and transphobic, because transwomen are women.

You're right, I'm just making all of this up. Your arguments are unassailable.

@JacksonNought 🙄 thats not even a close comparison to the original question and just shows how retarded your logic is.

  1. I still actually answered (your made up question
  2. Original question is a fair observation of what the left have been actually asserting
  3. You can't note or address and explain the hypocrisy that the original post pointed out
  4. You have no real argument.
  5. You yourself deflect, use strawman arguments or just plain ignore questions.

@Tom81 no, it is exactly the same actually.

The original question was "Progressives say X, but also say Y, explain that". And my answer was "no, Progressives don't say that". So yes, I answered the made up question at the very beginning by saying it wasn't true. So you have no real argument, because it is based on a lie.

@Alysandir correct, everything you said is not what Progressives argue.

Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks there are Jewish Space Lasers. Todd Akin thinks that women can control their bodies to not get pregnant if they are raped. Lawrence Lockman thinks that legal abortion means men should legally be allowed to rape. Jason Rapert thinks America should become a theocracy. Some Conservatives thought Mike Pence should have been executed for not overturning the Electoral College results. So, I guess I can just say that all Conservatives believe the previous statements, and ask you to defend them?

"Wow this is the dictionary definition of strawman." does not equal "a weak or imaginary opposition"

Boom - just burned that strawman! As to your point, yes, everything on blogs, twitter, social media, etc... are to some extent "strawman" arguments.

@JacksonNought so you're denying that 'progressives' believe in assertions made in 'critical race theory' and 'critical gender studies'?

@JacksonNought

correct, everything you said is not what Progressives argue.

Really? Then I'd say the Progressives have an optics problem. Because right now? You're being represented publicly by the people who are asserting these things. And I don't just mean groups like BLM and Antifa, I mean the mainstream media.

And that's the difference between Progressives and Conservatives, as per your argument: yes, each side has whackadoodles with out-there ideas, but FOX News, OAN, Daily Wire, et al aren't writing article after article in defense of Jewish Space Lasers. Where are the Progressives who you claim are against all the things I mentioned, standing up to denounce these ideas. Please show me.

@RobBlair uh, yes it does. Building a strawman - or an imaginary position - so that you can say it is hypocrisy and tear it down.

@Tom81 define Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Studies.

Also, why did you use "gender" now, you were using "sex" before?

@Alysandir uhhh, except the mainstream Conservative news keep lying about the election, and yes they keep defending Greene and her positions.

You say Progressives think skin color defines who you are and what you should believe. No, they do not. You say Progressives think biological sex does not define who you are and what you should believe... okay, that is true. But since they do not believe in the former, no they are not being inconsistent.

@JacksonNought

@JacksonNought
"define Critical Race Theory and Critical Gender Studies." - look it up yourself. There's plenty of it on 'progressive' sites.

"Also, why did you use "gender" now, you were using "sex" before?" - I've never used the term 'Critical Sex Studies', so unless you have proof of me doing so you are lying or trying to change the argument.

@RobBlair [twitter.com]

@JacksonNought

uhhh, except the mainstream Conservative news keep lying about the election, and yes they keep defending Greene and her positions.

First, what you call a "lie" I call "reasonable unanswered questions." And when the authorities refuse to answer the questions posed to them and warn people to stop asking, I think that is concern-worthy. But since you seem to enjoy the, "well YOUR side does it" argument so much, I would remind you that your side spent an inordinate amount of time arguing Russian interference in 2016 even though nothing ultimately was uncovered. And by "an inordinate amount of time" I mean they did little else, chasing this down to the point of distraction. Should we then say that your side asking questions equated to them "lying about the election?"

As for your assertion that the Conservative MSM keeps "defending Greene and her positions," you must spend a lot more time than I do reading the Conservative MSM, because I don't recall seeing a single article defending Jewish Space Lasers.

You say Progressives think skin color defines who you are and what you should believe. No, they do not.

I gave you examples. Numerous ones. If you claim that Progressives don't believe these things then WHO are these people? Who are these academics that are pushing critical race theory? Who are these pundits claiming society is systemically racist and that all white people are complicit in that racism? Who are the activists that were hired by Coke to teach their employees to "be less white?" Who are these teachers claiming that math is racist and needs to be overhauled? Why is it that asking black people to have ID is akin to the "Jim Crow South" because the claim black people being required to have ID is racist? And again, who are the people who claim that black people are white supremacists or don't act "black enough?" Because there sure do seem to be a VOCAL lot of them in damn near every public vertical; they certainly aren't Conservatives, Liberals, or Libertarians; and they count THEMSELVES as Progressives. So if they aren't...who are they?

You want to deny it, be my guest. But denying it does not make me think that I'm wrong. It just makes me think you're denying it. I've invited you in earnest to explain it all to me and in our several exchanges so far, you've yet to even try. I suspect the reason you haven't and won't is because you really don't want to consider the issue too closely, lest that raise some very uncomfortable considerations you'll have to then reconcile.

Which I totally get, being a libertarian. People pose to me quite frequently scenarios and ask me how I can justify being libertarian and how I can say one thing yet seemingly do another. I enjoy these mental exercises because they allow me to test what I really believe. You might enjoy it as well, if you let yourself try it.

But that's not going to be today, apparently. Another time then.

Thank you for the conversation; I found it stimulating.

@JacksonNought > You say Progressives think skin color defines who you are and what you should believe. No, they do not. You say Progressives think biological sex does not define who you are and what you should believe... okay, that is true.

Just being a picky progressive?

CRT, pushed by progressives, do think that skin color defines who you are. It is what CRT is. White = oppressive. Black = oppressed. No escaping skin color.

Either you do not have a grasp of what CRT is or you don't have a grasp of what progressive is?
But since you are not a stupid person, only slightly eccentric, and in some instances deranged, you are probably just being a troll.

In any case thanks for helping some of us develop our debating skills. Most appreciative.

@FrankZeleniuk

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that racism is a social construct, and that it is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

A good example is when, in the 1930s, government officials literally drew lines around areas deemed poor financial risks, often explicitly due to the racial composition of inhabitants. Banks subsequently refused to offer mortgages to Black people in those areas.

Today, those same patterns of discrimination live on through facially race-blind policies, like single-family zoning that prevents the building of affordable housing in advantaged, majority-white neighborhoods and, thus, stymies racial desegregation efforts.

[edweek.org]

So, sounds like you don't have a grasp on what CRT actually is. Just another buzzword and bogeyman like "Socialism" and "Marxism".

@Alysandir

I think we're at "Game, Set, and Match." Well done.

@farmerguy56 hey Exclamation Marx, is your keyboard broken? You might need a tech to look at it.

@JacksonNought

Half points. CRT might promote its core idea as "racism is a social construct" but then it redefines race as an "identity" that can ignore the immutable aspects of race at its convenience. Disagree with them and, if you are Black, "you ain't black". If you are white and disagree you are a white supremacist. Agree with them and if you are Black you must rise up against white supremacy. Agree with them if you are white and you must self-flagellate and denounce your whiteness. Really it is not concerned about racism or race. It is concerned with dividing and conquering. The fundamental transformation of America.

Gender also becomes an "identity" where immutable characteristics can be ignored.

Instead of race and gender being immutable, races and genders are now identities that have no objective characteristics. Progressives are, however, the only ones that can define identities though. That's why they can say, "you ain't Black", even if you are or you're a white supremacist and you don't even know it, you have to denounce your race. It's essentially newspeak where the immutable aspects of race and gender are now irrelevant and no longer define the individual. He is instead assigned an identity.

CRT is just a political tool that redefines words. Same old Marxist newspeak playbook to confuse the masses.

If there were laws, like Jim Crow laws or slavery as existed in the past, they might have a case for social transformation but those days are gone.

4

If they are fresh out of college - They've spent a lot of their idiotic parents' money to become uneducated in reality. They are arguing from their professors' authority about nonsense that was reinforced by their college cult.
If they are in their 30s, they are experience some disillusionment. That is being countered with a bit of buyer's remorse (I just wasted half my life making friends and spouting nonsense - do I risk losing all that just to live in truth).
If they are older than 40, they have decided to join the dark side. Machiavelli is their bible. The evil they commit is acceptable based on a necessary march to Utopia (just follow the dead bodies).

This philosophy (marxism - but it's even older than that) works with any subdivision of society. Economic class, political, religious, race, etc... The division just needs to be something that people are sensitive towards. An immutable division actually works better. No "poor people can become rich" excuses.

For most this is a power argument, and truth is not a goal.

3

Exactly that's the stupidness of their point of view. I can't believe the complete lack of logic and critical thinking.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 33

Photos 11,776 More

Posted by JohnHoukVideo Collection of Tyranny Past, Present & Future SUMMARY: This is a collection of seven videos that are in a random date order showing my interest… Tyranny is the theme.

Posted by GeeMacMexico admits it is a hotbed of drug trafficking, but not of drug use, according to its top politician.

Posted by JohnHoukReprising ShadowGate Documentaries: With Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukLest YOU Are Brainwashed to be Happy in an Age of Transformation Tyranny: Videos & Commentary to Refresh YOUR Memory to at Least Awaken Personal Resistance! SUMMARY: An examination of saved videos...

Posted by Weltansichtwell....doggies

Posted by MosheBenIssacMetoo in action

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukConnecting the Dots! Some AI Truth – What Used to be “Playing God” is Really “Playing Devil” SUMMARY: … Satan – the foe – has only one delusional recourse: Brainwash human souls ...

Posted by JohnHoukMy Intro to Documentary, ‘Let My People Go’ SUMMARY: Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukMedical Tyranny – A Look at mRNA Danger & COVID Bioweapon Exploitation SUMMARY: Medical Tyranny has become a fact of life that the brainwashing Dem-Marxists, RINOs and Mockingbird MSM work hard ...

Posted by JohnHoukDr.

Posted by JohnHoukIrritated With Transformation Yet?

Posted by JohnHoukVOTE TRUMP – Overcome Dem-Marxist/RINO Lies – Video Share SUMMARY: The first batch of shared videos reflects VOTE-FOR-TRUMP in the midst of Dem-Marxist/RINO government LIES.

Posted by JohnHoukA Look at Mike Benz, THEN Tucker Ep.

Posted by JohnHoukLooking at ‘The Great Setup with Dr.

Posted by JohnHoukEnlightening Videos of a Corrupted Society SUMMARY: … The thing is, TYRANNY today has become very multifaceted in how the socio-political infection of CONTROL has crept into the one-time Land of ...

  • Top tags#video #youtube #world #government #media #biden #democrats #USA #truth #children #Police #society #god #money #reason #Canada #rights #freedom #culture #China #hope #racist #death #vote #politics #communist #evil #socialist #Socialism #TheTruth #justice #kids #democrat #evidence #crime #conservative #hell #laws #nation #liberal #federal #community #military #racism #climate #violence #book #politicians #joebiden #fear ...

    Members 9,397Top

    Moderators