The definition of being “Woke”

Obreid

Power Poster
The definition of wokism by Victor D Hansen.
The frog carried the scorpion across the river and when across the scorpion stings the frog.
The frog looks at the scorpion as the poison spreads.

the frog: Why did you sting me? I carried you across the river?
the scorpion: Because that’s who I am.

Always be careful what political fad or movement you go along with.
When a political movement or fad has momentum all sorts of weird and twisted manifestation will occur.

A recently installed diversity officer marches into a public works facility and brusquely demands to know who is the “minority working at this facility”.
Transparent in their mission to catch an employee who falsely misrepresented themselves on a job survey.
They reply he’s over there, he’s Pacific Islander.
Deflated the diversity officer blurts out. “Oh he’s one of those!” Then spins and marches out.

Seems diversity has its own acceptable definitions and limits and there just as prejudiced as past ones.
 

DarkNoon

Power Poster
Its a word for a few groups of generations that lets other people know you believe in conspiracy theories and don't think for yourself.

I have only heard people use the word "woke" in pretense that they believe in these crazy cracked up conspiracy theories and because they do believe they are "woke". I mean I am almost speechless on how feeble minded the current few generations in America are.

"I am woke man, I know what is really going on"
"I am woke cause I know there are lizard people"

I thought hippies from the 70's cut the cake in retardation, but this generation just raised the bar ten fold in being retarded.
 
Last edited:

DarkNoon

Power Poster
I mean it though, never once have I ever heard the word "woke" used in any other social setting than saying you believing in conspiracy theories. Just the dumbest dumb thing ever. lol

YOUR NOT WOKE FOR BELIEVING THINGS YOU READ, WATCH, OR HEAR FROM A LIBTARD/REDNECK ONLINE HAHAHA..... DUMB PEOPLE STOP BEING DUMB! 🤣😂😅😆
 
Last edited:

Obreid

Power Poster
You obviously believe what your told,
Well done you pass the test.
It is True woke can refer to belief in conspiracy theories I suppose. Although no one I know uses it in that context.
By the way when did testing the effects of Siphilis on black prisoners stop being a conspiracy theory I wonder?
My mistake for not offering a definition of being woke. For myself being woke is ironically being exactly everything you displayed in your reply.
being woke has nothing to do with believing the World trade centers might have been brought down with controlled demolition. Or Sandyhook was a false flag.
Being woke means accepting at face value what your told and doing the stutter step to get you cadence in-line with the rest of the band.

being woke is jumping on the latest political or social justice fad no matter where it heading or daring to question the narrative.
Being woke is accepting social media trends and personalities as validation of a story or a narratives validity. Being woke is being told what to believe and adjusting your opinions to reflect those beliefs.
Its evident we have different of understanding of what woke means.
It was my mistake for not clarifying.

Even though I might give thought to a “conspiracy theory” most I dismiss off hand because their ludicrous or rooted in racism. Some merit some consideration and review looking for outside sources to confirm or refute.
are set to the side allowing time to sort them out. Mostly their just distractions to be ignored.

Being woke for many is absolute confirmatory to new political fads or social justice narrative where a college professor can be protested and driven from their job for saying out loud “all lives matter”
you know why the statement “all lives matter” is so offensive to many? It’s not because it’s inherently incorrect in anyway. It’s offensive because it takes away from the cause and agenda of the day. Rather than adopt a statement that is universally true and irrefutable a partial selective truth is adopted to drive an agenda.
Being woke was not speaking up for the Jews in 1930’s Germany because it wasn’t popular, it would have been costly. Or hell maybe you just hated Jews.

Dismissing a alternative presentation of facts is what good judgment, thinking for oneself, convenient, or safe?
Accepting a new or popular social or political cause is what good judgment, thinking for oneself, convenient

just like the Karen meme it cuts both ways.
What is a Karen? a crazy MAGA anti-Vaxxer or a crazy mask enforcer.
The answer
which ever one is most supports your beliefs.
 

ralfy

Member
It's the effect of late capitalism and decadence; in this case, the use of ideas borrowed from post-colonialism to attack others based on past grievances.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
It's the effect of late capitalism and decadence; in this case, the use of ideas borrowed from post-colonialism to attack others based on past grievances.
Don’t confuse our economic system with corporations and international businesses with capitalism.
Before modern international corporations the biggest “corporation” in the world was the royal family of England.
Start enforcing monopoly laws. trade policy based on national policy and not financial policy.
If a corporation no matter how big violates a capital law yank their corporate charter ( execute them).
Share holders hurt? Yes! Make them take responsibility in what they invest in at any level.
If a corporation are actually forced to take responsibility as an entity like citizen then they have to suffer the threat of law.
Bank of America was caught laundering money for the cartels. No one went to jail. They payed a fine much smaller than the profits they made on the criminal enterprise.
Throw the executive officers and board members in prision

Do that and you will have smaller more responsible citizen invested businesses.
That’s what capitalism is not what we have today.
Capitalism is people starting business and hiring people building something people want and need.
If they do well they and everyone benefits.
If they don’t they fail and someone else does better and everyone still benefits.
That or what they were trying to do was of no interest or benefit to the people to start with.
 

ralfy

Member
Don’t confuse our economic system with corporations and international businesses with capitalism.
Before modern international corporations the biggest “corporation” in the world was the royal family of England.
Start enforcing monopoly laws. trade policy based on national policy and not financial policy.
If a corporation no matter how big violates a capital law yank their corporate charter ( execute them).
Share holders hurt? Yes! Make them take responsibility in what they invest in at any level.
If a corporation are actually forced to take responsibility as an entity like citizen then they have to suffer the threat of law.
Bank of America was caught laundering money for the cartels. No one went to jail. They payed a fine much smaller than the profits they made on the criminal enterprise.
Throw the executive officers and board members in prision

Do that and you will have smaller more responsible citizen invested businesses.
That’s what capitalism is not what we have today.
Capitalism is people starting business and hiring people building something people want and need.
If they do well they and everyone benefits.
If they don’t they fail and someone else does better and everyone still benefits.
That or what they were trying to do was of no interest or benefit to the people to start with.

That makes zero sense. Corporations are part of capitalist systems, and part of capitalism includes free trade.

The reference to the Royal Family makes no sense as well, unless you're now claiming that the U.S. is a monarchy.

Enforcing monopoly laws and national policies are part of socialism, which focuses on regulation. In contrast is free market capitalism with deregulation, where what's best is what market forces determine.

Many of the things you say are done in countries like China, where the CCP can bully even private corporations. In the U.S., it's Wall Street that calls the shots. On the other hand, with Biden in place and probably more push from Sanders, your wishes might come true.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Sorry you don’t have a shared view of history. Ill keep mine.
my own country is on the slow road to totalitarianism. Ill continue to fight that change in my own nation with all its faults.
Rather than embrace a full blown totalitarian system.
 

ralfy

Member
Sorry you don’t have a shared view of history. Ill keep mine.
my own country is on the slow road to totalitarianism. Ill continue to fight that change in my own nation with all its faults.
Rather than embrace a full blown totalitarian system.

Allow me to elaborate: capitalism involves corporations because corporations are businesses. It's not easy to imagine a capitalist system without businesses.

There's state capitalism, which is why Communism isn't against capitalism but private ownership of businesses, but free trade may take place if the state doesn't disallow it. That includes buying raw materials and finished goods from some countries and selling the same to others, as well as services. The device you're currently using to access this forum, together with other products, are very likely results of free trade.

The Royal Family isn't exactly a corporation in the modern sense, as corporations involve articles of incorporation, corporate by-laws, and other things submitted to the gov't to register businesses and receive charterships. Perhaps you meant something else.

Socialism is an ideology that supports regulation in general, and that includes nationalizing any businesses. If it abolishes private businesses, then it becomes Communist.

Given that, enforcing laws on businesses is part of socialism, but that doesn't mean that capitalists are against socialism, as other laws are needed in their favor. That includes legalizing ownership of private property, using fiat currencies, and allowing the state to control certain businesses that can't work with competition, such as utilities in towns and cities and police and military services.

Finally, about your point concerning totalitarianism, you are correct, but it may have taken place for the U.S. much earlier, i.e., in 1913, when the rich took control of money supply and formed the Federal Reserve, which is actually a private consortium of Wall Street banks.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Look I’m tired of arguing tit for tat points. Sports are boring.

capitalism is free trade with minimal government intervention/ regulation. It does not matter if a business is private or incorporated. If a corporation becomes so large it can control markets or government influence then it’s a monopoly and should be dissolved as a business entity.
Or on the reverse side are state owned business and markets. Same results same animal. They suppress the individual for the master.,
Most modern countries are on the road to more and more regulation.
Most regulation today isn’t for the public good but the protection of either the state or large corporations or some amalgamation in between.
A state run society is by definition a monarchy. The society exist to support the state. They can wear a crown a three piece suit or an AK/47.
Non of those models support the individual liberty but only demand the individuals subservience to the warlord no matter how he dresses or talks.
I’m done sparking over semantics now.
This conversation is going no where and I don’t get paid to argue until the other is exhausted.
You have your view or master and I have mine.
 

ralfy

Member
Look I’m tired of arguing tit for tat points. Sports are boring.

capitalism is free trade with minimal government intervention/ regulation. It does not matter if a business is private or incorporated. If a corporation becomes so large it can control markets or government influence then it’s a monopoly and should be dissolved as a business entity.
Or on the reverse side are state owned business and markets. Same results same animal. They suppress the individual for the master.,
Most modern countries are on the road to more and more regulation.
Most regulation today isn’t for the public good but the protection of either the state or large corporations or some amalgamation in between.
A state run society is by definition a monarchy. The society exist to support the state. They can wear a crown a three piece suit or an AK/47.
Non of those models support the individual liberty but only demand the individuals subservience to the warlord no matter how he dresses or talks.
I’m done sparking over semantics now.
This conversation is going no where and I don’t get paid to argue until the other is exhausted.
You have your view or master and I have mine.

Arguing tit for tat is the point of discussions in a discussion forum.

Capitalism doesn't necessarily involve free trade. It can consist of internal trade initially.

It doesn't necessarily involve minimal government intervention. That's why many capitalist economies are mixed.

All businesses are incorporated. Otherwise, it gets into legal trouble if others contest ownership.

To control a business to avoid a monopoly requires government intervention. Those who are against that imagine that another business will emerge and offer better products and services, thus ensuring competition.

State-owned businesses are not on the reverse side as private corporations. Perhaps you meant that they are on the same side, as you referred to them as the same animal. But why do you imagine that that shouldn't suppress the individual in favor of the master if that's what they put in their corporate by-laws and submit to gov't? Or are you imagining some sort of economy where businesses aren't answerable to their owners but to their consumers? If so, then how does that work?

Of course, modern countries are on the road to more regulation, as more complexity leads to the latter. In the past, there would have been no regulations concerning television as there were no such technology then.

The point that regulation is meant to favor the rich was made by Marx, who in the Manifesto argued that the state is nothing more than an executive committee that works for the bourgeoisie. Are you making a similar claim?

AFAIK, society doesn't exist to support the state; rather, society is the state, or rather a society that legally declares its sovereignty in contrast to others based on geographical borders, and as agreed upon internationally. In contrast, a monarchy is not the same: the monarch is the state, and members of society part of the body of the monarch. (Is that how Hobbes would put it, i.e., the leviathan?).

Of course, none of them support individual liberty; Rousseau made that point, too. But Rousseau also argues that even though man is born free, he is still in chains because he can't survive unless he works with others, and that means a social contract.

Finally, are you using the word "semantics" correctly? I think you're insisting that all of the terms you gave have different meanings, but I don't see anything logical in what you've shared so far.

One more thing: isn't the idea that all opinions are valid (e.g., each person has his own views) something that "wokes" usually raise? That's why their ideologies are driven by relativism.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
No all opinions aren’t valid some are wrong
All preferences of choice might be valid as long as they don’t encroach on another’s might be valid.
Opinions are just that opinions nothing says they have to be valid.
Beyond that it’s just conflict
Or obfuscation.
 

Obreid

Power Poster
Capitalism doesn't necessarily involve free trade. It can consist of internal trade initially.

It doesn't necessarily involve minimal government intervention. That's why many capitalist economies are mixed.

All businesses are incorporated. Otherwise, it gets into legal trouble if others contest ownership.
Thank you for making my point you either don’t understand capitalism or your a mouthpiece for China.
all business are not corporations
Free trade starts at home internally
It doesn’t start at boarders
 

ralfy

Member
No all opinions aren’t valid some are wrong
All preferences of choice might be valid as long as they don’t encroach on another’s might be valid.
Opinions are just that opinions nothing says they have to be valid.
Beyond that it’s just conflict
Or obfuscation.

Some opinions are not valid because they're illogical.

I don't understand the second point: why should an opinion be valid if it "enroaches" on another, esp. if the other is invalid, which is stated in your first point?

The third is a circular definition (an opinion is an opinion) and thus meaningless. It also contradicts your first statement, which states that not all opinions are valid.

The fourth point doesn't make sense given your first point: if some opinions aren't valid, then they can "enroach" on invalid ones, which is conflict.

Finally, obfuscation takes place when someone who gives an invalid opinion keeps imagining that what's he's giving is the opposite. Or argues that "opinions are opinions" and yet may be invalid or valid. Or that "not all opinions are valid" and yet "nothing says they have to be valid."

You have to read your arguments and revise them first before posting in order to avoid these contradictions.
 

ralfy

Member
Thank you for making my point you either don’t understand capitalism or your a mouthpiece for China.
all business are not corporations
Free trade starts at home internally
It doesn’t start at boarders
Please explain why I don't understand capitalism.

For your second point, you're now resorting to personal attacks. You need to stop doing that and focus on discussing things rationally.

Businesses are corporations because they have to register with the gov't articles of incorporation and corporate by-laws. Of course, they can also be single propietorships, but they still have to submit these documents, together with others annually, and pay the equivalent of corporate taxes.

Free trade may start at home internally, but that doesn't counter my argument in any way.

I have no idea what you're talking about concerning "boarders." Why are you talking about people who pay for lodgings?

Wait: are you referring to borders?
 

ralfy

Member
This is not true. Many businesses are not incorporated. The DEFCON Warning System is a legally registered business, but it is not incorporated.

By "incorporation," I'm referring to the constitution of a business, which requires government intervention. That's why this forum is a "legally registered" business.
 

DEFCON Warning System

Director
Staff member
By "incorporation," I'm referring to the constitution of a business, which requires government intervention.
I'm sure there are others who can give a much better legal definition of "incorporation," but it is a legal term.

Small businesses are not "incorporated". We are a small business and thus are not.

I have another business. It's called The Everlasting Companies, Inc. It is not a legally registered corporation, but by definition it is one. It consists of Everlasting Films, Everlasting Word Publications, and Everlasting Dreams Real Estate. I'm certain there are a thousand things wrong with all that, so I hope no one will clog the thread by pointing all them out.

But there's the quick-and-dirty difference.
 

ralfy

Member
Wait for it wait for it ......

Even in an unincorporated business such as a sole propietorship, you still need to get a business name and register with the government to get licenses, etc., or report any profits and losses in your own tax returns. And if you sell your unincorporated business to another, you have to draw up deeds, which may lead to complications if you didn't register your business. The same thing applies if you have plans to bring in partners.

In general, businesses (sole proprietorships or more) require legal systems for all sorts of purposes, such as providing limited liability to making it easier to bring in investors.

That said, one has to be incredibly naive to imagine capitalist sysems without such regulations.
 
Top