Interesting.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/philosopher-reveals-biggest-threat-to-western-civilisation/ar-AA18Hq8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69a16cf2ca0b42c1b4957d7bf6786140&ei=11

There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative.

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:21pm:

Interesting. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/philosopher-reveals-biggest-threat-to-western-civilisation/ar-AA18Hq8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69a16cf2ca0b42c1b4957d7bf6786140&ei=11

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/avp/images/1/1b/AVPRBR_Chestburster.png

If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVolrgzByb4

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:17pm:

If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is:

It's in the dictionary ....

woke | wəʊk |
verb
past of wake1.
adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory
alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke.

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:17pm: If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is: It's in the dictionary .... woke | wəʊk | verb past of wake1. adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke.

Yes but the lady who wrote a book about it does not know that. Nor do 90% on the right.

Somewhat funny that to the right the biggest insult they have is to accuse people of being aware of social injustice.

Is that really the best they have?

Is that the best you can come up with after 2 years of being asked "What is a Woman?" and not being able to answer across the entire globe? ;D

You are a Failure.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:15pm:

There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative.

:D :D

That is SOOO stupid, it HAD to be you, ducky.

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:21pm:

Interesting. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/philosopher-reveals-biggest-threat-to-western-civilisation/ar-AA18Hq8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69a16cf2ca0b42c1b4957d7bf6786140&ei=11

The biggest “threat” to Western civilisation is the demeaning of truth and the “smearing of people based upon their objective characteristics” like race, gender or sexual orientation, says the University of Austin Founding Fellow Peter Boghossian.

In a word - NewSpeak.  Deforming then controlling language is deforming and controlling thought. 

Frank wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 11:19am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:15pm: There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative. :D :D That is SOOO stupid, it HAD to be you, ducky.

I was aiming at stupid just so you would understand.

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 10:59pm:

Is that the best you can come up with after 2 years of being asked "What is a Woman?" and not being able to answer across the entire globe? ;D You are a Failure.

2 years ago you didn't even know that you needed to be told what a woman is.


I have only been ignoring you on this for around 7 months.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 11:34am:

Frank wrote on Mar 17th, 2023 at 11:19am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:15pm: There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative. :D :D That is SOOO stupid, it HAD to be you, ducky. I was aiming at stupid just so you would understand.

It makes zero sense, even to you, ducky: opposing wokery is more woke than the woke. No is more yes than yes. That is just simply idiotic. So you.
Peas? Help yourself.  Karnal will give you bananas and 10 rupees.

https://media.tenor.com/3W23pfxaRwMAAAAd/duck-peas.gif

Frank wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 11:20am:

Jasin wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 8:21pm: Interesting. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/philosopher-reveals-biggest-threat-to-western-civilisation/ar-AA18Hq8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69a16cf2ca0b42c1b4957d7bf6786140&ei=11 The biggest “threat” to Western civilisation is the demeaning of truth and the “smearing of people based upon their objective characteristics” like race, gender or sexual orientation, says the University of Austin Founding Fellow Peter Boghossian. In a word - NewSpeak.  Deforming then controlling language is deforming and controlling thought.

You got it right there Frank. ;)

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 9:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:17pm: If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is: It's in the dictionary .... woke | wəʊk | verb past of wake1. adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke.

More like : " Self righteous virtue signaller who believes they have all the answers and will not tolerate any deviation from their way of thinking. Feels compelled to interfere in anything that they think is offensive even if it is none of their business. Fond of censorship and cancelling or rewriting history." 

Belgarion wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 5:12pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:17pm: If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is: It's in the dictionary .... woke | wəʊk | verb past of wake1. adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke. More like : " Self righteous virtue signaller who believes they have all the answers and will not tolerate any deviation from their way of thinking. Feels compelled to interfere in anything that they think is offensive even if it is none of their business. Fond of censorship and cancelling or rewriting history."

Agree.

Do you think Ducky Boy was in the movie Pretty in Pink?
A rejection complex from Ranga's might be his problem?

Frank wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 11:19am:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:15pm: There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative. :D :D That is SOOO stupid, it HAD to be you, ducky.

Talking about stupid you know I read you previous post right ?

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 6:11pm:

Frank wrote on Mar 17th, 2023 at 11:19am: Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:15pm: There is probably nothing more woke than the dishonest right wing anti woke narrative. :D :D That is SOOO stupid, it HAD to be you, ducky. Talking about stupid you know I read you previous post right ?

No, ducky - you were feasting on peas.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 5:12pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:17pm: If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is: It's in the dictionary .... woke | wəʊk | verb past of wake1. adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke. More like : " Self righteous virtue signaller who believes they have all the answers and will not tolerate any deviation from their way of thinking. Feels compelled to interfere in anything that they think is offensive even if it is none of their business. Fond of censorship and cancelling or rewriting history."

You definition sounds a lot like the right.

Belgarion wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 5:12pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:51pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 16th, 2023 at 9:17pm: If anyone on the right wants to know what woke is: It's in the dictionary .... woke | wəʊk | verb past of wake1. adjective (woker, wokest) sometimes derogatory alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination: he's an activist and very woke | woke culture has moved into mainstream journalism | my neighbourhood is a very woke area | we need to stay angry, and stay woke. More like : " Self righteous virtue signaller who believes they have all the answers and will not tolerate any deviation from their way of thinking. Feels compelled to interfere in anything that they think is offensive even if it is none of their business. Fond of censorship and cancelling or rewriting history."

It is amazing how often the right use the term woke and how few know what it means. You rather obviously make this list.

In fact your definition is the right to a tee. Huge fail.

Hey Ducky Boy. Were you that guy in Pretty in Pink?
;D

Dnarever wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 6:16pm:

It is amazing how often the right use the term woke and how few know what it means.

Educate us, Jim Puddle Duck, tell us what it really means.

You know, so tell us.

He won't Frank, because he can't.

Jasin wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 6:42pm:

Hey Ducky Boy. Were you that guy in Pretty in Pink? ;D

No Molly.

You know he was the guy in 2 and a half Men.

Jasin wrote on Mar 17^th, 2023 at 8:28pm:

He won't Frank, because he can't.

Why would I - I have to assume you can't read.

There was a survey where it was found that something like 75% believed that the term woke is meant as an insult. But the same 75% believe that in reality it is a good thing. The right don't know it but they lost the woke name calling competition.

Yes the vast majority of people have worked it out. It's only the ultra right crazy wackadoodles riding the woke train.

A Catholic intellectual group has been banned from holding its annual forum at a university hall over concerns about its views on transgender issues.

The Hobart-based Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies has for the past seven years held its annual “colloquium” at the University of Tasmania’s Jane Franklin Hall of residence.

It was booked again for the eighth such event, to be held in July this year, but the Hall has since withdrawn the booking out of concern about an advertisement for the event titled “Wokery and How to Deal With It”.

The advert included the claim that “elites” were undermining “objective truth” by teaching in schools that “girls can be boys, that boys can be girls, and that grown-ups should be punished for denying it”.

Jane Franklin Hall principal Joanna Rosewell confirmed and defended the cancellation, understood to follow a complaint about the ad.

Your post hasn't displayed yet but it does seem justified.

Why would anyone sponsor someone to tell lies and punch you in the face.

Seems reasonable to not provide the service to unbalanced religious nutters.

I don't see how you would call an intellectual group with these narrow minded views to be an intellectual group, seems the opposite.

.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 10:17am:

Your post hasn't displayed yet but it does seem justified. Why would anyone sponsor someone to tell lies and punch you in the face. Seems reasonable to not provide the service to unbalanced religious nutters. I don't see how you would call an intellectual group with these narrow minded views to be an intellectual group, seems the opposite.

And here you have given an excellent example of wokery...attempting to silence an opinion you disagree with.  ::)

I don't care what you call it, teaching children to have doubts about sexuality is one of the worst evils visited on humanity from the moral superiority of the "progressive" Left.

Double post.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 10:17am:

Your post hasn't displayed yet but it does seem justified. Why would anyone sponsor someone to tell lies and punch you in the face. Seems reasonable to not provide the service to unbalanced religious nutters. I don't see how you would call an intellectual group with these narrow minded views to be an intellectual group, seems the opposite.

This is exactly the preening, mindless idiocy we have come to expect from you, duckwit.

Mustn't have critical views of Islam because they will kill you for a cartoon. Musn't be critical of transgenderism because they will violently harass your audience so the venue - funded by the Catholic Archdiocese - cancels your eveng even though you held it there annually for the last eight years.
Mustn't disagree with th he Voice because they will call you a racist Judas. Mustn't be critical of ANY any of the lefty, progressive shibboleths because the massed armies of duckwittery idiots like you will denounce it, rather than hear hd argument and make a better one for their own case.  You dont have the brains or the wit or mind to make a better argument, a convincing case, so you do what your pea brained, Bbwianesque duckwittery limits you to: you mindlessly denounce dissent.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 10:45am:

I don't care what you call it, teaching children to have doubts about sexuality is one of the worst evils visited on humanity from the moral superiority of the "progressive" Left.

Quote:

teaching children to have doubts about sexuality is one of the worst evils

Politically making your life about stopping something which doesn't happen is real stupid. The whole anti Trans thing isn't a thing it is just a right wing diversion because they have nothing else. It's part of the green M&M and Dr Seuss strategy.

At most in schools it is about teaching children that not everyone is the same and it isn't the end of the world.

Woke is also not really a thing, most on the right don't even know what it means and it is used to mean anything the right don't like.

80% of people understand that woke isn't the insult that the right think it is and actually support wokeness.

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 11:32am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 10:17am: Your post hasn't displayed yet but it does seem justified. Why would anyone sponsor someone to tell lies and punch you in the face. Seems reasonable to not provide the service to unbalanced religious nutters. I don't see how you would call an intellectual group with these narrow minded views to be an intellectual group, seems the opposite. This is exactly the preening, mindless idiocy we have come to expect from you, duckwit. Mustn't have critical views of Islam because they will kill you for a cartoon. Musn't be critical of transgenderism because they will violently harass your audience so the venue - funded by the Catholic Archdiocese - cancels your eveng even though you held it there annually for the last eight years. Mustn't disagree with th he Voice because they will call you a racist Judas. Mustn't be critical of ANY any of the lefty, progressive shibboleths because the massed armies of duckwittery idiots like you will denounce it, rather than hear hd argument and make a better one for their own case.  You dont have the brains or the wit or mind to make a better argument, a convincing case, so you do what your pea brained, Bbwianesque duckwittery limits you to: you mindlessly denounce dissent.

Quote:

This is exactly the preening, mindless idiocy we have come to expect from you, duckwit.

Great opening - the obligatory insult. solid (not).

Followed of course by the muslims and transgender. (Shock Horror) and backed up by more insults.

I better read it again - I don't think you actually said anything.

issuevoter wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 10:46am:

Double post.

Better than the other one.

Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ?

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 12:09pm:

Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ?

Why do you reply to posts about them then?

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 1:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ? Why do you reply to posts about them then?

Because every topic is about denigrating them.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 2:03pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 1:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ? Why do you reply to posts about them then? Because every topic is about denigrating them.

Because its about them denigrating the world around them.
Don't like books and religions that don't run by your Gay/Trans narrative?
Instead of aggressively trying to change them - why not just write your own books, colonise your own country and create your own Religion?

Jasin wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 6:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 2:03pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 1:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ? Why do you reply to posts about them then? Because every topic is about denigrating them. Because its about them denigrating the world around them. Don't like books and religions that don't run by your Gay/Trans narrative? Instead of aggressively trying to change them - why not just write your own books, colonise your own country and create your own Religion?

Quote:

Because its about them denigrating the world around them.

99% of the loudest complainers have never met one.


Quote:

Don't like books and religions that don't run by your Gay/Trans narrative?

Yet it is the conservatives burning the books that they are afraid of.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 6:12pm:

Jasin wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 6:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 2:03pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 1:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 12:09pm: Transexual people are about 0.02% of the population, why is every topic about them ? Why do you reply to posts about them then? Because every topic is about denigrating them. Because its about them denigrating the world around them. Don't like books and religions that don't run by your Gay/Trans narrative? Instead of aggressively trying to change them - why not just write your own books, colonise your own country and create your own Religion? Quote: Because its about them denigrating the world around them. 99% of the loudest complainers have never met one. [quote]Don't like books and religions that don't run by your Gay/Trans narrative?

Yet it is the conservatives burning the books that they are afraid of.
[/quote]

You've never been to Ukraine but you support them and condemn Russia?

Quote:

You've never been to Ukraine but you support them and condemn Russia?

Based on known facts. Not hate based diversion tactics

Dnarever wrote on Apr 10^th, 2023 at 12:06pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 11:32am: Dnarever wrote on Apr 10th, 2023 at 10:17am: Your post hasn't displayed yet but it does seem justified. Why would anyone sponsor someone to tell lies and punch you in the face. Seems reasonable to not provide the service to unbalanced religious nutters. I don't see how you would call an intellectual group with these narrow minded views to be an intellectual group, seems the opposite. This is exactly the preening, mindless idiocy we have come to expect from you, duckwit. Mustn't have critical views of Islam because they will kill you for a cartoon. Musn't be critical of transgenderism because they will violently harass your audience so the venue - funded by the Catholic Archdiocese - cancels your eveng even though you held it there annually for the last eight years. Mustn't disagree with th he Voice because they will call you a racist Judas. Mustn't be critical of ANY any of the lefty, progressive shibboleths because the massed armies of duckwittery idiots like you will denounce it, rather than hear hd argument and make a better one for their own case.  You dont have the brains or the wit or mind to make a better argument, a convincing case, so you do what your pea brained, Bbwianesque duckwittery limits you to: you mindlessly denounce dissent. Quote: This is exactly the preening, mindless idiocy we have come to expect from you, duckwit. Great opening - the obligatory insult. solid (not). Followed of course by the muslims and transgender. (Shock Horror) and backed up by more insults. I better read it again - I don't think you actually said anything.

You are two-faced and/or stupid, duckwit.

You are emotionally critical of any number of things. But if anyone is critical of what you promote then you immediately go preening, pouting, hurt.  You have no argument, yo only have hurt feelings. Articulating a good reason is just a right wing trick for the emotionally correct duck, so you avoid making reasoned arguments like the right wing plague you take them to be. (This move also allows you to glide over the fact that you could not make a reasoned argument about anything to save your life).

If you had to articulate reasons rather than display ready-made emotions, you'd fall immediately silent.

Ducky Boy is a Media narrative lackey.

Explainer by the poetess of Ipswich.

https://youtu.be/H8MbklRr93Y

;D

There was only one Australian character for which Humphries was unreservedly vitriolic: the wowser, which he described as “a traditional Australian figure – ­humourless, ignorant and vindictive – he is still with us, disguised as a liberal-minded upholder of the politically correct”.

The woke Australian.
Bbwian, ducky and mothra above all.

Rage is no cure to the Yes camp’s predicament

According to Marcia Langton, “the public square has been flooded with egregious
lies about the referendum proposal”.
Nor is Langton alone. Linda Burney has accused the “wantonly misleading” No
campaign of using outright falsehoods as its “weapon of choice”. And just this week
the Prime Minister slammed the “stuff that’s going into people’s Facebook posts” as
“designed to spread misinformation”.
Now, to err is one thing; to lie quite another. The first is regrettable; the second is
immoral.

In effect, the word “truth” comes from the Early and Middle English term for
fidelity, loyalty, or reliability. Truthfulness is therefore the form of trustworthiness
that relates to speech – and to deceive voters by knowingly telling untruths is
plainly to breach that trust.
But the claims point to worse than moral opprobrium. To know “the truth” yet
deny it, and intentionally induce others into error, is among history’s most sinister
accusations – for it is precisely the Inquisition’s definition of heresy.
That too involved a change in meaning. Etymologically, “heresy” derives from the
Greek term hairesis, which simply meant “choice”, typically of one opinion among
others, and had no negative connotations.
By the time of Paul’s letter to Titus, heresy was viewed, far more pejoratively, as the
fomenting of schisms among the faithful; however, the New Testament itself never
enjoined silencing schismatics.
It was only in 385AD, some time after the emperor Constantine’s infamous decree
against the “enemies of truth”, that Priscillian and four of his disciples were put to
death for heresy, the first judicial execution of its kind. And it wasn’t until 1233,
when Gregory IX established the Inquisition, that it became doctrine that heretics –
“those who, having known the truth, perversely refuse to submit to it” – should
“not just be separated from the church by excommunication, but shut off from the
world by death”.
Winding that back took many centuries and countless horrors. The road to change
is too long to recount; but nothing better highlights the transformation than John
Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689).
The fundamental disputes about the world we live in, Locke wrote, are matters of
“judgment and opinion, not knowledge and certainty”, whose resolution could only
be based on reason guided by “grounds of probability”. “Judgments and opinions”
would inevitably differ; however, the differences were not to be feared – for civil
strife’s root cause was not disagreement but the determination to “compel others to
be of my mind, or censure and malign them if they be not”.

It is consequently no accident that Locke’s Essay Concerning Toleration, published
anonymously in 1689, set the intellectual basis for religious freedom. Nor is it an
accident that there was an inextricable connection between the development of
religious toleration and the cementing of political liberty.
John Toland made that connection explicit in his path-breaking Anatomy of Great
Britain (1716), which established the notion that to oppose the king, when one
believed he was in error, was neither treason nor heresy, but the highest form of
patriotism. So was born that seeming oxymoron, the concept of a “loyal opposition”,
which, by jettisoning the Aristotelian view that “faction” (stasis) inevitably destroyed
the polis, proved 18th-century Britain’s greatest contribution to democracy.
It was with all that in mind that Hannah Arendt, who no one could tar as a
reactionary, launched her unforgiving and utterly unforgettable assault on those
who claimed, in politics and public life, to have “the Truth”, God or even worse,
“History”, on their side.
The reality, she wrote in 1958, is that social action, “with its innumerable, conflicting
wills and intentions”, triggers changes whose outcomes “we are never able to foretell
with certainty”. That contrasting evaluations will be made of the likely outcomes is
consequently entirely natural; under those circumstances, to demand “mass
unanimity” is nothing “but an expression of fanaticism”, which “by eliminating
debate and diversity eliminates the very principles of political life”.
And by stifling controversy, the dogmatic claim to “the Truth” is the surest path to
misery, “for the inexhaustible richness of human discourse is infinitely more
significant” in securing social progress “than any ‘One Truth’ could ever be”.
In the end, said Arendt, it is only the capacity “to hold different opinions and be
aware that other people think differently on the same issue (that) shields us from
that god-like certainty which stops all discussion and reduces social relationships to
those of an ant heap”.
But the accusations of lying do not just reek of the illiberalism that views critics as
heretics, who merit being silenced by laws against misinformation and
disinformation; they are also infused with rage.

The Yes campaigners’ rage can fairly be described as Homeric: like that of
Agamemnon and Achilles, it is the fury of those who fume at not receiving the
deference they believe they deserve. Like Shakespeare’s Coriolanus – in what is both
the most Homeric and the most political of Shakespeare’s plays – they chafe at
having to “beg of Hob and Dick their needless vouches”: that is, at having to win
over the plebs by presenting a coherent case that rebuts, rather than merely
vilifying, the other side.

And like all Homeric rages, they veer from anger into contempt, epitomised by
Noel Pearson’s tirades against Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, and sink into incivility.
Nor do the Yes camp’s intellectual leaders shy away from that fact: Megan Davis, for
example, derides the calls for civility from what she terms “the civility brigade” as
simply a cover-up for “marginalising already marginal groups” – a seemingly
incongruous description of the lavishly funded and officially backed Yes campaign.

What Davis and others forget, however, is what the ancients well knew: that
Homeric rage, with its trashing of civic coexistence, is an open invitation to
Nemesis, the goddess of retribution against arrogance, who, by blinding the
hubristic to reality, leads them into the humiliation of defeat and the agonies of
doom.
Of course, viewed in contemporary perspective, that blood-soaked denouement
seems better suited to the Homeric era than to our own. Fortunately, the modern
world offers a milder, but no less devastating, cure to the pretensions of all those
who rage at their critics – a cure, worth quoting in full, that Alice, travelling
through Wonderland, spells out when she refuses to answer the Queen of Heart’s
ridiculous questions.

“ ‘How should I know?’ said Alice, surprised at her own courage. ‘It’s no business of
mine.’ The Queen turned crimson with fury, and, after glaring at her for a moment
like a wild beast, began screaming ‘Off with her head! Off with …’. ‘Nonsense!’ said
Alice, very loudly and decidedly – and the Queen was silent.”
With outraged cries of “off with their heads!” bellowing across Australia, who could
possibly put it better?

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/rage-is-no-cure-to-the-yes-camps-predicament/news-story/863e7c0d4346ce214bdc72002ed4e7cb

But of course you cannot reason with the shrill wokerati.

Quote:

Philosopher uses reason to wake the Woke.

Using reason would require you to wake the slept, the woke are already awake.

Dnarever wrote on Aug 18^th, 2023 at 11:52am:

Quote: Philosopher uses reason to wake the Woke. Using reason would require you to wake the slept, the woke are already awake.

:D :D
You got ALL that from reading the article, ducky??

We've got our own Woke out here in the bush, keeping an eye out for brown snakes, they are the dangerous ones, red bellied black snakes aren't that bad, one was in my yard and I watched him out my window for a day, he was gone the next day and my neighbor spotted him, what he did with it I don't know. Mice were a nuisance during that plague, we only had some, but they blew the fuse in my A/C, there was roasted mice nearby on the ground. Our Woke demands that we bury dead animals, give them a decent burial

We are woke to all the pot holes in local roads and remember where they are so as to avoid them next time. Kangaroos jumping out and bashing into cars quite often is another thing we are very woke to, we don't blame them, they are only doing what kangaroos do. So too falling branches blocking roads. We are always alert for broken down vehicles and ready to help the unfortunate driver/occupants ... the lefties should be happy that we do that

There's different "Wokes", we have ours, and the big cities have theirs, different environments require different Wokes

A compendium of wokery. All the buzz words, shibboleths, NewSpeak neologisms.


https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2023/07/an-abc-of-woke/

The apologism for Hamas in privileged circles has been mind-blowing. Hamas’s bestial violence against the Jews has been denied, downplayed or outright justified. A ‘day of celebration’ is how one privately educated pretend radical in Britain described the racist butchery of 7 October. This sympathy with barbarism, this receptiveness to acts of staggering dehumanisation, goes beyond Israelophobia. It speaks to more than the witless hate for Israel that’s been rampant in right-thinking circles for years.

It even touches on something deeper than the scourge of identity politics, though that politics no doubt shapes the infantile hot take that Jews are permanent oppressors and Palestinians are forever victims. No, the sympathy shown by woke Westerners for Hamas’s apocalyptic violence reveals a moral kinship between these two sections of global society. It exposes their shared contempt for Western civilisation, their shared indifference to human suffering, and their shared loathing of freedom.

Having educated the young to view the West as a racist entity; to fear America and Britain as nations born in the sins of slavery and Empire; to ‘decolonise’ their own learning of those arrogant white men of Enlightenment; to eschew science as a Western conceit that negates more indigenous ways of knowing; and to doubt the existence of truth itself, we cannot now be shocked to find them so cavalier about a violent assault on this awful, unspeakable West. In this case, Hamas’s racist onslaught on the people of a state that is seen to embody Western values in the Middle East. For many today, ‘Western civilisation is synonymous with racism, oppression and exploitation’, as one academic puts it. So why not celebrate its violent humiliation? Why not revel in the degradation of those who enjoy its gains?

We cannot afford to underestimate how significant it is that many of our young sympathise with Hamas and view the Jews they butchered as oppressors. This must be a moral watershed for the West. In turning the young against civilisation, we’ve marched them into the arms of barbarism. We have lost them to Hamas.

The unholy marriage between wokeism and Islamism can no longer be denied. Both scorn the idea of Western civilisation. Both disavow Enlightenment as Western arrogance. Both dread the march of modernity, whether as a threat to Gaia or Sharia. And both hate Jews. One side views them as pigs and monkeys, the other as an oppressor class. Once again Jews have come to be seen as the embodiment of modernity, and therefore the enemies of modernity, whether that’s the civilisation sceptics of our own elite universities or the civilisation attackers of radical Islam, turn on them. Viciously. The woke dehumanise them as oppressors, Hamas dehumanises them with violence. Both are assaults not only on Jews but also on the civilisational conscience itself.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/29/the-unholy-alliance-between-wokeism-and-barbarism/

The apologism for Hamas in privileged circles has been mind-blowing. Hamas’s bestial violence against the Jews has been denied, downplayed or outright justified. A ‘day of celebration’ is how one privately educated pretend radical in Britain described the racist butchery of 7 October. This sympathy with barbarism, this receptiveness to acts of staggering dehumanisation, goes beyond Israelophobia. It speaks to more than the witless hate for Israel that’s been rampant in right-thinking circles for years.

It even touches on something deeper than the scourge of identity politics, though that politics no doubt shapes the infantile hot take that Jews are permanent oppressors and Palestinians are forever victims. No, the sympathy shown by woke Westerners for Hamas’s apocalyptic violence reveals a moral kinship between these two sections of global society. It exposes their shared contempt for Western civilisation, their shared indifference to human suffering, and their shared loathing of freedom.

Having educated the young to view the West as a racist entity; to fear America and Britain as nations born in the sins of slavery and Empire; to ‘decolonise’ their own learning of those arrogant white men of Enlightenment; to eschew science as a Western conceit that negates more indigenous ways of knowing; and to doubt the existence of truth itself, we cannot now be shocked to find them so cavalier about a violent assault on this awful, unspeakable West. In this case, Hamas’s racist onslaught on the people of a state that is seen to embody Western values in the Middle East. For many today, ‘Western civilisation is synonymous with racism, oppression and exploitation’, as one academic puts it. So why not celebrate its violent humiliation? Why not revel in the degradation of those who enjoy its gains?

We cannot afford to underestimate how significant it is that many of our young sympathise with Hamas and view the Jews they butchered as oppressors. This must be a moral watershed for the West. In turning the young against civilisation, we’ve marched them into the arms of barbarism. We have lost them to Hamas.

The unholy marriage between wokeism and Islamism can no longer be denied. Both scorn the idea of Western civilisation. Both disavow Enlightenment as Western arrogance. Both dread the march of modernity, whether as a threat to Gaia or Sharia. And both hate Jews. One side views them as pigs and monkeys, the other as an oppressor class. Once again Jews have come to be seen as the embodiment of modernity, and therefore the enemies of modernity, whether that’s the civilisation sceptics of our own elite universities or the civilisation attackers of radical Islam, turn on them. Viciously. The woke dehumanise them as oppressors, Hamas dehumanises them with violence. Both are assaults not only on Jews but also on the civilisational conscience itself.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/12/29/the-unholy-alliance-between-wokeism-and-barbarism/

Jasin wrote on Mar 16^th, 2023 at 8:21pm:

Interesting. https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/philosopher-reveals-biggest-threat-to-western-civilisation/ar-AA18Hq8f?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=69a16cf2ca0b42c1b4957d7bf6786140&ei=11

Hi Jasin,
It'ld be good if you put some of this into your own words or a quote


Quote:

.........   “smearing of people based upon their objective characteristics” like race, gender or sexual orientation,    .........

I agree, especially when people are objectified according on who they vote for, or what they think on any one particular topic

Will attend this topic/question in New Years. ;)

Is a “woke” assault undermining the history of the west?

Is our past being misrepresented in our schools, cultural institutions and broader society? Is it correct to present the history of the West as one of only shame, apology and reparations? Robert Toombs, Professor Emeritus in French History at Cambridge University.

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/betweenthelines/between-the-lines/102960980


Yes, it is.

Wokeness is an ideology that attracts a lot of criticism - much of which is warranted. That said, I believe the “Anti-Woke” crowd leaves much to be desired regarding offering meaningful solutions. Without a clear path toward solving the problem, it is easy for pessimism to seep in and demoralize a movement.

Hanania is able to create one possible roadmap by identifying specific pieces of legislation that created the conditions in American society for Wokeness to flourish and by providing approaches for addressing them.

https://therabbithole84.substack.com/p/origins-of-woke-law-book-review


Despite the intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its original vision of colorblind status under the law has been subverted by Woke Law which makes every disparity a form of discrimination, incentivizes government and corporations to engage in aggressive social engineering practices through policies like affirmative action, has kickstarted a massive Human Resources Industry, and has invited the government into the bedroom to regulate people’s sex lives. Things do not have to be this way and Richard Hanania has given us a path forward in The Origins of Woke.

https://twitter.com/dbenner83/status/1753190532149350730

8-) 8-)

Frank wrote on Jan 19^th, 2024 at 8:34am:

Wokeness is an ideology that attracts a lot of criticism - much of which is warranted. That said, I believe the “Anti-Woke” crowd leaves much to be desired regarding offering meaningful solutions. Without a clear path toward solving the problem, it is easy for pessimism to seep in and demoralize a movement. Hanania is able to create one possible roadmap by identifying specific pieces of legislation that created the conditions in American society for Wokeness to flourish and by providing approaches for addressing them. https://therabbithole84.substack.com/p/origins-of-woke-law-book-review Despite the intentions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, its original vision of colorblind status under the law has been subverted by Woke Law which makes every disparity a form of discrimination, incentivizes government and corporations to engage in aggressive social engineering practices through policies like affirmative action, has kickstarted a massive Human Resources Industry, and has invited the government into the bedroom to regulate people’s sex lives. Things do not have to be this way and Richard Hanania has given us a path forward in The Origins of Woke.

Quote:

Wokeness is an ideology that attracts a lot of criticism

Wokness is mainly garbage made up by the right to justify their lies.

Pillars of Woke Law
It isn't easy to summarize Hanania’s work without being reductive, but, for the sake of this post, I will focus on a few broad themes that reoccur throughout the book that essentially form the pillars of Woke Law which are as follows:

Affirmative Action
What is it? Affirmative Action is a system of demographic preferences most commonly revolving around race and sex.

How is it enforced? Through Executive Orders 11246 and 11478.

What can be done? Repeal aforementioned Executive Orders and place more concrete bans on demographic preferences. The Supreme Court recently ruled against such types of preferences which will help provide some legal ammo through precedent.

Disparate Impact
What is it? Disparate Impact can be thought of as a legal doctrine that arbitrarily conflates discrimination and disparities - therefore, any disparity (even if it is caused by factors other than discrimination), will be attributed to discrimination.

How is it enforced? Through legal precedents set through Supreme Court cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971).

What can be done? Overturn the aforementioned legal precedents and more precisely define what “discrimination” is in the context of Civil Rights Law.

Harassment Law
What is it? A claim that making certain demographics (typically women and minorities) uncomfortable is a violation of Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) and thus necessitates measures as extreme as silencing free speech. Corporate efforts to mitigate risk in this area have resulted in a massive human resources bureaucracy. Title IX has further spread the tendrils of policies Harassment Law into the universities.

How is it enforced? Through Title VII and Title IX.

What can be done? Emphasize legal contradictions within the enforcement mechanisms and codify protections using the First Amendment as precedent.

https://therabbithole84.substack.com/p/origins-of-woke-law-book-review

In Nietzsche, Hegel’s thought meets its nemesis: truth is now a convenient fiction, the unity of the self is an illusion, power rather than reason rules human affairs, history is a chapter of gruesome accidents and the world is a scene of flux and fluidity without inherent meaning or value. All this is to be celebrated rather than lamented, and the name of the celebration, strangely enough, is tragedy.

At a popular level, among hippies and dissident students, all this helped to nourish a culture in which freedom was boundless and thus vacuous, hierarchy was suspect and the very idea of an institution smacked of repression. The political goal was to leap in one bound from a degraded present to a utopian future. In excavating Hegel’s political thought, Bourke’s never quite declared intention is to take issue with this slipshod radicalism, not least as it survives in our own time; and if rereading Hegel is an effective way of doing so, it is because Bourke takes his political thought to revolve around a series of revolutions whose outcomes were dismally at odds with their original intentions.
...
You don’t need to tack some arbitrary utopian dimension onto what exists, since what exists already secretes within itself the seeds of what ought to be. There is no need to be strung out between the everyday world and political fantasy. The only viable future is one with its roots in the present, not one that is parachuted into it by dreams or diktats. You can only grasp the essence of a thing by grasping what it is in the act of becoming.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n04/terry-eagleton/seeds-of-what-ought-to-be

Politics in the Northern Hemisphere only supports the 'individual' and/or the 'establishment' of Politics itself - never the 'people' even though that's the excuse for it to exist. Never in history has it directly involved itself or existed in 'equality' with 'the People'. The People are the Crime.

Today’s activism is shaped by a philosophical worldview known as critical theory. Developed by post-WWII academics such as Theodor Adorno and Herbert Marcuse, critical theory is an analytical framework that aims to identify and dismantle systems of power. It takes Karl Marx’s critique of capitalism and extends it into other domains, including race, gender, sexuality, nationality and indigeneity. Systems of power that need to be dismantled include white supremacy, patriarchy, cis-heteronormativity, colonialism and capitalism.

This preoccupation with power is why social justice activism today comes in a package. The civil rights movements of the past focused on tangible results, such as making changes to legislation that would promote dignity and equality for all.

But since racial, gender and, later, marriage equality have become formally enshrined by law, the focus of activists has shifted from the concrete to the abstract, with the goal now being to “dismantle power”.
Claire Lehmann

dismantle 'white' power.

Sydney Biennale - another year, another load of preposterous ideological bollocks


Of course we should have known what to expect from the first press release, issued last year: Artistic Directors Cosmin Costinaș and Inti Guerrero said: “Ten Thousand Suns departs from an acknowledgment of a multiplicity of perspectives, cosmologies, and ways of life that have always woven together the world under the sun. A multiplicity of suns conveys an ambiguous image … But it also conveys the joy of cultural multiplicities affirmed, of First Nations understandings of the cosmos brought to the fore, and of carnivals as forms of resistance in contexts that have surpassed colonial oppression.”

If you are wondering why, after so many ideological buzzwords, the curators omitted “capitalist”, it appears in the second paragraph, where they acknowledge “the deep ecological crises derived from colonial and capitalist exploitation while refusing to concede to an apocalyptic vision of the future. The 24th Biennale of Sydney proposes instead solar and radiant forms of resistance that affirm collective possibilities around a future that is not only possible, but necessary to be lived in joy and plenitude.”


[Not satire at all. They mean it]


This Biennale, even more than its predecessors, has succumbed to ideology and moral posturing. Beyond and as we know often in conflict with feminism is the infatuation with an idea of “queerness”. So-called queer art has always remained marginal because many of the greatest artists of the past already had complex and fluid sexual lives, without being boxed into the categories that were imposed over the past century and have now multiplied into ever more alphabetical sub-identities.

What is curious here is to see how “queer” is trying to gain greater traction or legitimacy by assimilating the Indigenous, even though nothing could be more antithetical to the values of “queer” than traditional Aboriginal society with its patriarchal and authoritarian structure and rigidly defined and enforced gender roles. The idea of “black queer” is a postcultural hybrid spawned by an alienated urban environment.

But this spurious assimilation is also significant because the main ideological program of this Biennale is to deplore “colonialism”, supposedly the cause of all the woes of the contemporary world, from injustice to climate change. Wall texts and labels throughout claim credibility for various indifferent exhibits on the grounds that they are critiques of colonialism or settler culture.

As I have said before, the Left hates colonists and settlers, but loves migrants and refugees; and yet all of these are overlapping categories, if not ultimately the same thing in the long course of history – and certainly in the case of ­Australia.

Population movements, settlement, empires and colonisation are, historically speaking, simply ways that civilisations have been brought to less developed peoples, and that knowledge and technology have been shared across humanity for thousands of years. All historical processes involve confrontations and therefore injustices; these should not be denied, but they are ultimately incidental to the greater movements of which they are a part.

The idea that we could even begin to feed ourselves without modern farming techniques is ludicrous; we cannot imagine a life without literacy, books, science, technology, medicine, philosophy and critical thought.

And yet, as we have seen, this exhibition is steeped in an ideology of deluded nostalgia for the past. The very idea of modern or contemporary art seems to have been consumed by this ideology.

Above all, this year’s Biennale confirms that the cultural establishment is radically out of touch with what is really happening in the contemporary world, whether politically, socially or culturally.

Their yearning for primitivism is not a form of critical “resistance” as they would like to believe, but a futile and self-indulgent escapism.




The cultural/arts establishment is completely unserious, deluded, often deranged. All thought, all reason, all talent, joy, creativity - in short, all culture and art - are gone, smothered, suffocated.

Well - you were never going to see Michelangelo dragged down from the Sistine Chapel roof to go put out the rubbish...



Missus Angelo:-  "Meeckie.. Meeckie.. why you godda work-a for da Pope all-a time!  House need doing - I too tired..."

Mickee:- "Wait until I finish the creation scene..... just a little thing..."

Their yearning for primitivism is not a form of critical “resistance” as they would like to believe, but a futile and self-indulgent escapism.




The cultural/arts establishment is completely unserious, deluded, often deranged. All thought, all reason, all talent, joy, creativity - in short, all culture and art - are gone, smothered, suffocated.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/sydneys-biennale-is-behind-the-times-and-lost-in-escapism/news-story/d979def81229a1c1f2038a9544cdb92c#&gid=null&pid=1

Frank wrote on May 20^th, 2024 at 8:14pm:

Their yearning for primitivism is not a form of critical “resistance” as they would like to believe, but a futile and self-indulgent escapism. The cultural/arts establishment is completely unserious, deluded, often deranged. All thought, all reason, all talent, joy, creativity - in short, all culture and art - are gone, smothered, suffocated. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/sydneys-biennale-is-behind-the-times-and-lost-in-escapism/news-story/d979def81229a1c1f2038a9544cdb92c#&gid=null&pid=1

Much better for everyone to slave for the economy and the profit of 0.5% of the population.

You seem to sidestep the national culture which is what it primarily means.

The truth about woke

This insidious, illiberal ideology has nothing to do with protecting the marginalised.


A primary reason why this illiberal, authoritarian ideology has been able to become culturally powerful is that no one of goodwill wants to stand against social justice. No one ever says, ‘we need less justice in society’, do they? It is, in fact, rather presumptuous for the Critical Social Justice movement to appropriate for itself the title ‘social justice’ and act as though it owns the term – as though the rest of the politically engaged world is seeking something else. Different political factions primarily disagree on the fine details of what a fair and just society should look like and how to achieve that in relation to things like taxes and welfare programmes. But there is a general consensus that a just society is one in which everybody is equal under the law and no group should be denied access to any rights, freedoms, or opportunities given to others. The mainstream view of social justice is that society should be fair to everyone.

But that’s not how advocates of Critical Social Justice see social justice. In fact, they oppose many approaches that seek justice and fairness, especially those based on empirical evidence that focus on the individuality of all people and our common humanity. As education professors Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo emphasise in Is Everyone Really Equal? (2017), their idea of Critical Social Justice differs from an idea of social justice based on ‘commonly understood… principles of “fairness” and “equality” for all people and respect for their basic human rights’. They prefer the term Critical Social Justice ‘in order to distinguish our standpoint on social justice from mainstream standpoints’:

‘A critical approach to social justice refers to specific theoretical perspectives that recognise that society is stratified (ie, divided and unequal) in significant and far-reaching ways along social-group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality and ability. Critical Social Justice recognises inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (ie, as structural), and actively seeks to change this.’

As this passage indicates, other approaches to social justice may not hold that society is stratified so simply along identity markers or that these stratifications permeate everything all the time. Indeed, people who care about a just society but are not convinced that the ‘critical’ method will help to achieve one can take a variety of approaches to measuring and addressing inequalities, prejudice and discrimination. Yet these once-fringe ‘critical’ theories have, by design and intention, entered the mainstream, and their adherents, as taught and trained, are actively seeking to change the inequalities that they believe are ‘deeply embedded in the fabric of society’. They act accordingly wherever and whenever they can, whether in government, the judicial system, corporations, educational institutions, religious congregations or even hobbyist groups.

The idea that we have all been socialised into horrible bigoted beliefs like white supremacy and patriarchy, and that even those of us who think we abhor them have them lurking deeply in our unconscious, has been impacting people for some time now in places they simply have to go to and cannot avoid. At work, at university and in many other vital institutions, people find themselves obliged to allow specialist trainers to dig these unconscious bigoted beliefs out of us, tell us what they are, have us affirm them and commit to dismantling them via approved processes and re-education materials. Further, these ideas have been adopted and integrated across a wide range of academic and professional fields.

We need to push back. We, as a society, need scholarship and expertise that is not influenced or corrupted by this ideology.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/16/the-truth-about-woke/

assumptions and doctrines that are foundational to Critical Social Justice ideology are rather simple. The core tenets are as follows:

(1) Knowledge is a social construct created by groups in society. These groups are determined by their identity in terms of race, gender, sexuality and more, and are deemed to have either dominant or marginalised positions in society.


(2) The dominant groups – white, wealthy, straight, Western men – get to decide which ‘knowledges’ are legitimate and which are not. They choose the ones that serve their own interests.

(3) These legitimised knowledges then become dominant discourses in society and simply the way to speak about things. Everybody is unavoidably socialised into them and cannot escape being so.

(4) People at all levels of society then speak in these ways, thereby creating and perpetuating systems of oppressive power like white supremacy, patriarchy and cisnormativity.

(5) Most people cannot see the systems of oppressive power that they are complicit in because they have been socialised into having those very specific biases and thus unconsciously act on this socialisation.

(6) Therefore, the systems of oppressive power are largely invisible and their existence and means of operation need to be theorised by Critical Social Justice scholar-activists.

(7) Only those who have studied Critical Social Justice theories are fully able to see the invisible power systems and must convey them to everybody else.

(8) Social justice (as defined by Critical Social Justice theories) can only be achieved by making everybody believe in these theories. This entails seeing and affirming these invisible power systems and their own complicity in them, as well as committing to dismantling them.

(9) Any disagreement with or resistance to Critical Social Justice beliefs is evidence of either ignorance or selfish unwillingness to accept one’s complicity in the oppressive power systems. Thus, any disagreement or resistance is automatically invalid.

(10) Therefore, the liberal belief in the individual’s agency to evaluate a range of ideas and accept or reject them is a self-serving myth, and liberalism, above nearly all other ideologies, is a major impediment to achieving (critical) social justice.

Changes Coming To Netflix's ‘Chronicles Of Narnia’ Reboot

https://media.babylonbee.com/articles/6758c80a87d056758c80a87d06.jpg



Aslan the lion will be non-binary: There are rumors he also may be played by a panther.

It will be tied directly into the Stranger Things cinematic universe: Get ready for Eleven and the gang to show up to save the Upside Down from invading Narnia.

In Narnia, it is "always winter but never Kwanzaa": Focus group testing has shown Christmas to be too problematic.

Mr. Tumnus is a man who is transitioning into a fawn: He will also, therefore, be the most important character of the entire story.

Chris Pratt is there for some reason: As is required in every film.

Peter is now a bitter old man living on an island who thinks it's time for Narnia to end: It'll be completely counter to everything people have always loved about the character. It'll be great.

Eustace Scrubb will no longer be turned from a dragon back into a human: That would be detransitioning, and that is not allowed.

A Muslim gets into heaven: Oh, wait — that actually happened in the original Narnia stories.

Evil wins: A bold new take on a classic morality tale.

The Media in Australia, America and Samerica is a woman's world for sure.
Explains a lot about Peccary, Karnal, Dnarever, Smith and LTYC.

SATIRISING THE LEFT

Josh Szeps interviews Titania McGrath, ecosexual radical intersectionalist poet with variable pronouns.



https://youtu.be/-OZtt8Y0NXM?si=9KquWQhw-dcpcEUR

The purpose of propaganda is not to spread truth, but to violate individual autonomy.

Therefore, the more absurd and inescapable it is the better, and the greater the violence it does to minds. The goal of modern academic life (it often seems) is to make us believe six impossible things before breakfast, or at least to make us behave as if we did.
Theodore Dalrymple