Woke.
(media.scored.co)
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Woke at its' core is Anti-White, Anti-male, Anti-heterosexual, Anti-Christian, Anti-American, and Anti-Western civilization.
"Wokeness" or "Wokeshevism" as I like to call it, comes from the Frankfurt School's Cultural Marxism. They thought the best way to make American society & Western society open to Communism was to tear down the social safe guards of Whites, men, Christianity, and Heterosexual relationships but especially families.
These social safe guards built American society & Western society, and thus built the resistance to Communism's specific parasitic & totalitarian nature, this is why Wokesheviks want to tear them down.
Christianity (specifically the protestant branch) paired with the capitalist free market has been the method to lift more people out of poverty than any other in history.
The issue is that to change society enough to deeply ingrain the cultural foundations of protestant Christians takes more than three generations.
Having given the subject deep thought, I have some ideas as to why.
Honesty: Merchants who deal honestly with their customers benefit both parties. The customers form a relationship and (probably) come back. The customers get an honest deal. The effect on the greater economy is vast. Something like 40% increase in overall GDP. This is on top of the social benefits of living in a society where people are not lying cunts. Honesty is closely related to the value of Justice. An honest man sees the value in a just society. An honest man does not fear judgement.
Penance and Forgiveness: With a path for rehabilitation and reacceptance to polite society, there is a way to take problem actors and allow them to participate productively. Obviously this doesn't work in every case, but in general, it is more scalable across a nation. This replaces banishment, which worked just fine for a little desert tribe or a city state. Not so much for a country that spans a continent or an empire that rules the waves. The Christian method puts the responsibility directly on the individual. You screwed up? Fine. YOU do the work to make amends. We will watch. Forgiveness isn't the same as forgetting and it has limits. Even Jesus picked up a lash and scourged those fucking moneylenders.
Work Ethic: Protestants are famous for their cast iron work ethic. They work hard and they face their community every week in church. While it isn't specifically a Christian value, it is very much a cultural value.
The free market allows immediate feedback for your actions. People who add the most value to society earn the most money. It is vital that personal earnings be tempered by social values that maximize the individuals value to greater society rather than just the economy. A significant portion of the bible is spent instructing that rich people should be held to the same standards or even higher standards than everyone else. Your obligations to god and your fellow man do not change just because you are wealthy or even very rich.
In Russia the socialist movement first tore down the church and then tore down the family. The institutions of the state were subverted and used to keep the citizens obedient and afraid.
I was raised in the protestant tradition. I didn't think much of Christianity and I certainly didn't see the point of church. Now I am later in my life I have distinctly changed my mind. Frankly it doesn't matter if God is real or not. If we act like God exists, the world is a better place. History shows this pretty clearly. The most successful cultures of all time have been from the Christian tradition, with the strongest of those being Protestant and Lutheran.
Woke is being anti-White under the pretext of liberalism, democracy, and/or progressivism.
Yes, but an oversimplification. They are antiwhite without question, but it's not their primary end goal either. "White" is just another group they hate on their way to "equality." White people simply represent what they hate most, but if they actually succeeded in eliminating us all...you'd immediately see a pivot to "Asian privilege." You already are seeing that to some extent, in fact. They just want to pound down anyone who is in aggregate "overperforming," because they're dirty fucking communists.
In short, they absolutely despise white people, but it's not their core value. Close to it, at the moment, admittedly, though.
Their is conflict among woke people since it's coalition to attack Whites. Blacks and Asians, for example, will have competing interests. I think the bulk of anti-Asian sentiment coming from the woke is only to maintain the illusion of Tabula Rasa.
If they let Asians, as a minority, get too successful then it would undermine the pretext of attacking the White devils for racism.
The bulk of anti-asian sentiment is negros who resent asians even more than they resent whitey.
During that opening scene of "Menace II Society", where the hoodrats murdered the asian clerks, I guarantee you more blacks cheered than were outraged, and I would wager that if the group viewing it was all black the ones that were outraged kept their mouths shut and none of them ever spoke anything negative to the ones that cheered.
At present. That's my point. If you could snap your fingers and remove whitey from the equation...I think we'd all be rather surprised how short a time it took before the rise of the Yellow Devil narrative. That's the thing with communists and similar ideologies; they need an enemy. Whites are the current enemy. Remove us, and someone will need to fill the slot for their rage, and the blame for the Injustice.
That's my point. It is a coalition to attack whites...but that's not its prime goal or exclusive focus. The reason they hate whites is because they view us as an obstacle for their goals. And, just like in any other communist agenda, if they get rid of one obstacle...well, the body piles just keep getting higher.
Destroying Whites is the goal though. That's why Biden is risking losing the election over his shitty immigration policies. It's a calculated trade off to do as much damage to Whites within a four-year term.
His point is that the overriding goal of the entire group is to destroy whites. The fact that there will be infighting between blacks and Asians after whites are gone isn’t a surprise. It’s also not much comfort to whites.
For sure, and to be clear, I'm just being pedantic mostly. It's a moot point, since to find out would involve whites being exterminated...which should be stopped at all costs.
But what I'm getting at is, although they certainly hate whites, I don't think it's their end goal. Even if they destroyed whites, it's not like they'd stop. It's not like they'd be satisfied.
So I stand by my point that it's not their end goal, while also acknowledging your point (and should have been clearer on the issue) that it doesn't really matter whether it is or not, since we have to fight what's in front of us at the moment. They want to eliminate whites; that should be fought. Whether or not they go after some other group next is irrelevant...whites are in the crosshairs, I'm not arguing that.
They hate ‘whiteness’
What this means to them is beyond skin colour. It is being on time, being straight, having rules and standards for language and behaviour. Art that is beautiful. Look at that smithsonian poster on whiteness. Look at what black kids are teased for when accused of ‘acting white’.
This is what they hate and it’s why asians and sometimes Indians and any ‘model minority’ that is seen to work hard and study also earns their scorn. It is a cultural revolution, they hate the culture.
This is the same dance the gay commies always do.
They all know what it means. They pretend not to so they can nitpick to strip anyone who is against them of intellectual/epistemic authority. Then if that doesn't work they attack moral authority by using *ist and "hateful" and "bigoted" and whatever.
Gay commies don't use dialogue to communicate, they use it to attack their enemies. Their goal is to get their opposition to state some obvious, yet heretical truth that will get them banned/suspended from the public forum. Then, after their enemies are exiled or cowed into submission for fear of exile, the gay commies win by default.
Dialectic is useless. Only rhetoric matters.
I think this definition is relevant:
woke /wōk/
Adverb, adjective
The enabling of division and destruction under a false pretense of promoting kindness and empathy
The correct response: define woman.
It's always very easy to define and explain these words to them, but completely impossible to break through the smugness to actually make them listen. At best you get 2-3 words before the shields go up and they'll argue that water isn't wet until you give up.
The vast majority of people cannot define the word "the," yet that doesn't prevent them from both using it correctly and understanding it when they hear it. Never let that retarded "most people cannot define it therefore it doesn't exist" argument slide.
Marx, and his followers, and scions, don't care about "equality" they care that they aren't in charge.
The "oppression" narrative is a pretext to grant the marxists unearned authority in the name of "equality".
USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST
equal outcomes, it's literally just communism
'Woke' is just intersectional feminism. Don't get sucked into this fake argument.
Absolutely... wait, what?
that's his shtick, say something prowhite/antijew and followed by pedo remarks, there's some pajeet that keeps doing it and gets banned at ConsumeProduct, don't know if it's the same guy
14-17 was perfectly marriagable age in most western societies in times past. Now we prefer women spend that time being indoctrinated to hate men and their culture.
Like it or not, there's a legit argument to be had that the elites have intentionally made women off limits at later and later ages in order to depopulate certain societies. It is always interesting to me how people who are quick to point out how the US government is shit on the vast majority of issues are the absolute loudest about the age of 18 being this sacrosanct unbreakable thing or else you're a pedo.
Based on a quick search, hebephilia is like 11-14 generally. It's basically pedophilia-lite. We can talk age of consent and other things - and there is room for discussion there - but "I can't believe it's not pedophilia™" isn't the way to go. Fuck's sake.
I can see an argument for eighteen being too old. I can see an argument, for, say, sixteen being reasonable. But even that has some issues, considering you then get 30 and 40 year olds trying to get with still relatively young girls. But "hebephilia" goes beyond that, and really is just basically "it's not technically pedophilia, wink wink, hahaha."
And the hebephiles are just annoying, too, because, just like with a lot of the "queer" activists, they delight in shoving their degeneracy down everyone else's throat. "Look, isn't this fourteen year old girl hot?" To which I respond, no, get the fuck out of here, creep.
Now that I will agree with you on, for sure. Pedophilia is a serious issue, and I hate to see it diluted. Having a consensual relationship with a seventeen year old might be unpopular, it might be unpleasant, it might be frowned upon, and it might even be illegal depending on state...but it's not pedophilia. Anyone who calls it that is obnoxious, and hurting the actual point of cracking down on people who abuse children.
But, yeah, hebephilia is still creepy, and not that far removed from pedophilia, often. And the people who broadcast their interest in it should be looked at with extreme skepticism and suspicion...at best.
It's very difficult to say anything about your first three paragraphs other than the fact that they lack substance. You're basically just going that is essentially pedophilic and this is self evident because I say so.
And I can't say I've ever seen "hebephelia activists" but I'll take your word that they exist. Nothing I argued needs to be associated with retards doing shit in public that they shouldn't.
It's called oversocialization. Girls can bear children at that age and as such men have evolved to find girls attractive at that age. Anytime people try to quantify male attraction teenage girls score the highest. And let's just say the curve does not begin to plummet at 18 or even 16.
I appreciate the nuance even if I don't fully agree.
Here's where I will inject my nuance. I will die on the hill that sexual attraction to post puberty girls isn't inherently wrong.
That being said, if I had a daughter, would I want her at age 15 or something going out with a 27 year old dude? No. Because all of the safeguards in our society designed to protect the girl (and man) in that situation are gone. Divorce is rampant. You used to either not be able to get divorced unless in the most extreme situations, or you would have to expend a huge amount of social capital to do so. Now there is no guarantee a man wouldn't use and abuse a young girl during her most valuable years and then dump her. That's just one example.
So while I would say there is nothing inherently wrong about it, the way our society is (intentionally?) structured and facilitated today makes it untenable/unwise.
I'm (clearly) saying that eleven is a child. There's overlap between your "ideal" 14-16 range and a "hebephiliac's" 11-14, but you'll note that overlap is fourteen exclusively. Not sure why you're defending a (in my opinion very perverse) preference for girls generally younger than your age range. By your own statement, 11-13 at the very least is pretty dang young. Come on. Hebephiles are borderline pedophiles, that's definitionally correct.
We've had some on this very board, including the person you're responding to, who you're backing up despite explicitly championing hebephilia.
Then why are you here associating yourself with a retard doing retarded shit they shouldn't in public?
You're specifically calling them girls. I don't want girls, I want women. Young women, sure. But not girls. Sorry, young girls just don't do it for me.
You do you (or, alternatively, don't please), but a lot of the studies I've seen are generally late teens to very early twenties. Not sub-15. That's gross, and you're not going to change my mind.
Likewise, for the record. I don't agree with you, but I enjoy an interesting discussion if nothing else.
I can even sort of see that. Alright, but hebephiles are "only just slightly post pubescent" specifically. I stand by that that's kind of weird. That's "I like really young people, but don't want to be a pedophile" territory. I don't like pedophiles, and I don't like people with very similar proclivities trying to skate by on a technicality, either. It's not pedophilia, but it's also not significantly better.
Again, I certainly don't agree with where I presume you're coming from, but we can find some common ground at least. Modern society ruins a lot of relationships in general. Totally agreed. A lot of things that would be more reasonable or moral at another time are not now, because our current systems are absolutely insane.
You caught me. I don't want to fuck fourteen year olds...faggot confirmed.
Go back into the woodwork, maggot.
Comment Reported for: Sexualization of minors
Comment Removed: That while also violating Rule 16
What's that I see? Ah, a red flag. And those noises are alarm bells.
Based
Define Patriarchy.
Not kidding. Actually define it.
Women, in general, control about 70% of the household income. As far as I can tell, they always have.
One of the primary complaints raised in the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848 was that women were first financially dependent on their fathers and then financially dependent on their husbands; with the obligations that came with that.
The alternative to men earning the money is that women would earn the money. This neatly erases the male role in a family. Women do not stay married to men who do not provide.
It is interesting to me that men's role to bring home resources for their partners and the mother of their children; and are so hated and resented for it.