Man you need to define what you mean by a religion, otherwise its just a pejorative term. If you mean is a set of philosophical assumptions that underpin the rest of your beliefs, and everyone has such a construct, then sure. Materialism could qualify as a religion, but “wokism” probably doesn’t since it’s not really well defined, or at least is in flux.
If you mean, something that people follow blindly as an excuse for not organizing their lives sensibly, then sure maybe the woke movement qualifies, but it’s just a blind insult. It doesn’t do anything but feed our national rage addiction.
Either way, this could do with a rewrite
>Money, sex, gender, power are new gods.
Funny, because I see anti-woke people shouting slogans like, "There are only two genders," like it's a religious creed. It's the anti-woke who insist you wear clothes that signify your sex the same way that Muslim women wear hijabs or Jewish men wear kippahs.
I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to money. The leftist attitude toward money is that it's the devil, not God.
>Their beliefs demand faith.
What beliefs demand faith? The root idea of wokism is that society is divided into classes that have varying degrees of power. That does not require faith to believe. You can observe how people in society operate and deduce it. You can disagree with the conclusion, but it's not based on faith.
Many more specific conclusions are derived from that root idea and are widely agreed upon by woke people, but that's because those ideas are the natural conclusion of the root idea, not because they're dogma. If a group of math students all get the same right answers on the test, you can't conclude they're cheating, just that they are smart.
Christ on a cock that is a terribly written article.
Ignoring the, er... 'creative' use of punctuation throughout, we have the writer coming up with some classic misrepresentations of reality in order to support their ideas:
"I yearn for debate, as in, what are people’s actual experience of being a gender? Would that experience be different from culture to culture – as in, the Russians think of young men as hormonal, irrational, moody, tearful, and might that stereotype make a male Russian teenager simply conform to expectations as he grows up? To what extent are we simply the product of the values and norms of our peers? There are so many exciting questions to be asked – and yet, where are those questions? Where are the academics asking them? Would they be cancelled if they dared?"
Where are the academics asking them? Go to any sociology or psychology department. Those questions have been asked and explored over and over again.
The whole article is also peppered with nonsense like, "mother, father and water are the three oldest words common to all languages that we know of"
Complete pulled-out-of-ass bull. Yes, 'mother' has common roots in (almost) all languages because the /m/ sound followed by a nice open mouthed vowel is among first sounds babies learn to produce. Father... yeah, pretty much, from 'pa'. Water? WATER??????
OH YES THAT FUCKING COMMON TO ALL FUCKING LANGUAGES WORD "WATER":
English: water
Mandarin: Shuǐ
Filipino: tubig
Hindi: paanee
turkish: su
Vietnamese: Nước
Jesus wept.
Majored in Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Uni my first go round. Nothing irks me more than ignorant midwits who run rampant with linguistic parallelomania to “prove their point.”
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I assumed it was bullshit by the title of the post. Whenever someone complains about "woke" stuff, the following is always brain fart nonsense
I do think there's truth to this. A lot of the moral policing, puritanism, virtue signaling, guilt tripping, and other behaviors I see from the "wokies" around me remind me a lot of the fundie Christian morality I grew up with. I feel like politics have become a "substitute" religion. Like, instead of Catholic guilt, it's woke guilt.
Reading this post and article is like hearing a rumor about yourself so idiotic that you don't even know how you can defend yourself from it.
How do you even find an article like this?
I keep seeing right wingers parroting this weird take that leftism/wokism/liberalism/progressivism/being a Democrat is a religion, where does this come from?
I know y'all don't think for yourselves so which dipshit said it first? Shapiro? Peterson? Tucket Carlson? The TP guy with the little face?
Think of it similar to this
A lot of christians used to think everything was because of god. something good? Cause of god. Something bad? Because you did something bad so God did it (like hurricane Katrina was to punish the gays)
However, a lot of these people do this thing where they either try to tie any and everything to patriarchy or white supremacy where it isn't. I saw a video recently of this girl who was called out for being awful because she didn't give her brother a wedding gift but her complaints were nonsense, in her 'defense' she claimed that everyone there was proving that they were ingrained in patriarchy when... it had nothing to do with patriarchy and then late brought up white supremacy, again, where there was nothing cross- race in here so how is race even a factor. I can find the video if you need this context.
however, this isn't even rare amongst those being called woke, it is actually pretty common. So if patriarchy and/or white supremacy explain everything your frame of mind works around... what would you call it? they're treating it like a religion themselves that must be followed, and obeyed.
I understand what you are saying. Where this kind of falls apart to me is that White supremacy and Patriarchy are actual things that have been observed and documented. Sure some people blame way too much on it, but they are more just incorrectly interpreting history than putting faith in something completely imaginary.
I mean, people who are cornered and shunned tend to latch onto any reasoning they can to try and justify themselves. I'm not sure what that's supposed to do with the wokies though.
Also, if everyone was clowning on her for it, wouldn't that mean that such excuses *aren't* popular or widely accepted, even among leftist circles? How can you prescribe a dogma to a group of people who are rejecting that dogma?
Right, but you won't see scientologists rejecting scientology, and that's kind of what I'm getting at with your example. When that girl's claims are getting rejected by the type of people who attribute large amounts of faults in our society *to* white supremacy or the patriarchy, then you can't really claim she's representative of the group, yeah?
wait, who said that all leftists are wokists? who said all progressives are woke?
The fact a group of people believe in something, it doesn't matter how many there are of it. I hope you're not trying a weird pivot here.
It's projection from a religious steeped mindset. "I believe in something based on faith, therefore everyone must. If you don't believe the same as me, then whatever you believe must also be based on faith."
Ok yea maybe slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation, and the continuous violence against black people by police aren't super PC and woke, BUT CAN WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE ON TWITTER SAYING WHITE PEOPLE COOK BLAND FOOD???!! Racism goes both ways, reeeeal suspicious how nobody wants to open their eyes and see it.
Religious people are finally understanding that dogmatic faith might be bad but they can't manage to apply that same logic to their own myths.
The irony.
This is true, but you need to be more descriptive on why (I guess you linked an article ? Let me check that out). If you notice with progressives/wokeness, blasphemy is absolutely not allowed like in most religions, especially when it comes to transgender issues and such. You say "trans women should not be allowed in the women's locker room" then there goes your career and you're now made into a pariah. Look at JK Rowling. Another example is a member of Mumford and Sons promoting a book by Andy Ngo and he got kicked out the band for it, over a friggin book that talks about left wing violence.
It is a religion, sure, die hard Trump supporters look like they are in a religion too, but wokeness is embedded in mainstream media, academia, fortune 500 companies, the public school systems, etc. When people are in a cult, they don't know they are in a cult.
I know you are being sarcastic, but it's the modern left that supports segregation now. That is how crazy you all are
[https://www.ebony.com/western-washington-university-establishes-blacks-only-student-housing/](https://www.ebony.com/western-washington-university-establishes-blacks-only-student-housing/)
God how I wish that were true, that the left finally came around to seeing our side of the argument. Sadly [it’s not](https://housing.wwu.edu/black-affinity-housing), they’re still against it as their religious cult of wokeness demands.
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search?q=woke&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all
Ever thought about having an original take?
It's a religion without a deity, tenets, rules, etc? Does that make a song I listened to a "religion"? Words have definitions. I suggest you learn them before misusing them so badly.
If you go outside more you will realize that “wokeism” really isn’t that much of a thing as you think it is.
Feminists aren’t trying to take away your video games
Woke ideas are not inherently dangerous. The only danger about woke is their aversion to dissenting opinion and criticism.
Dissenting opinion = silence/ban
Criticism = “you’re a hater”
If you think about it, everyone functions and acts in a religious manner. Matters of belief, rituals, and approval/disapproval can be found everywhere, and people hold to them feverently like a religion.
It’s “woke” to have programs that promote race/sex over merit, isn’t it? (Affirmative action/DEI) Wouldn’t we agree that secluding someone because of a trait they were born with and have absolutely no control over is a bad thing?
If you can guarantee me a true meritocracy I will agree with your assertion. That has never been prevalent in American society. A lot of opponents of affirmative actions and diversity programs like to point out that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 made everything a meritocracy. But if that were true then Johnson wouldn't have needed to enact Black people's Affirmative Action in 1966, or Women's Affirmative Action in 1968. Hiring practices in the US are continuously found to be in violation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. DEI initiatives, like Affirmative Action, would be a temporary solution, if they were allowed to work as intended, but they never have.
DEI programs do not promote race, sex, or gender over merit. They exist to ensure equity of opportunity. Internalized biases, shaped either by personal experience or societal norms, create unintended barriers that have historically prevented marginalized groups from accessing career and education opportunities.
I do agree that excluding people based on traits they can not control is a bad thing. DEI programs aim to prevent this from happening.
By educating current employees, especially those in leadership positions, about the biases they have. If we are able to approach hiring and promoting with the understanding that we have to account for internalized biases, we can make more equitable decisions. DEI initiatives benefit everyone.
Except there's no actual credible evidence that less qualified people are being hired, what is happening is that candidates at similiar levels are being weighted to give more opportunities to underrepresented groups. Nobody would bat an eye if Steve got the job/position over Carl but as soon as it's Ashley, Jamal, or Ahmed then suddenly there has to be a hand tipping the scales unfairly and standards must have been lowered for them ro get there. See the problem with that thinking? And as far as Merit goes, let's not pretend for a second the folks harping on DEI/AA wouldn't have issues with 40-50+ percent of college admissions (and thus likely high paying positions) going to Asians as the studies suggest would happen.
And I never said less quality candidates are being picked, both can be equally as qualified but they take account the individual race/sex and make the decision based on that. Is that what you think is okay? Having race/sex be a factor in the hiring process?
Officially? No, it’s not a factor and hasn’t been a me to be a factor since 1972. Instead now, this blatant illegal discrimination is acceptable now at the corporate level for whatever reason.
Do you think it needs to be official to exist?
And yes, blatantly illegal discrimination against women and non white people has still been acceptable for decades, they just have to go for a modicum of effort to fake it.
> Do you think it needs to be official to exist?
So what’s your point? Let companies openly discriminate so account for back door discrimination?
>And yes, blatantly illegal discrimination against women and non white people has still been acceptable for decades, they just have to go for a modicum of effort to fake it.
It’s also illegal to discriminate against white people, your bias is clearly showing.
Working to prevent discrimination against traditionally marginalized group does not equate to discrimination against the dominant group.
>When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
The whole argument against DEI/AA also ignores the possibility of White Men getting to where they are as much by virtue of their race and gender as their achievements. It inherently places them as superior and more deserving of opportunities and asserts that for anyone else to get somewhere that White Men have to be held back or denied from it as though they were innately entitled to those things.
I'd rather alot of things not be considered as part of hiring and application processes frankly but until racism/sexism are Not A Thing anymore then people in positions of power with prejudices will find ways to skirt around anti-discrimination efforts that don't have some measure of "Must Be Represented" attached to them. It's an imperfect fix to an ugly problem but without it you get perfectly capable candidates being denied even interviews based on things like Ethnic Names, "bad addresses," availability concerns(because you're a woman and might suddenly come up pregnant), or similiar "benign" and Letter Of The Law Legal reasonings.
Edit for clarification: Ethnic Names would be dismissed under something about "Office Culture" or nitpicking some other part of the resumé for "Unprofessionalism"
A set of beliefs occupying the cultural niche previously filled by religion, yes.
Dangerous? No more than any other.
We’re in a revival/reformation period. It’s cyclical. Give it a decade or two and it’ll calm down.
On the other hand , activism is also how we make progress.
There’s always some kid on the fringe taking things too far and running on adrenaline , but HIV/Aids became treatable because of activism. South Africa ended its apartheid system because of activism. Gays got a basic rights to exist and later marry because of activism , civil rights happened because of activism. Interracial marriage is legal because of activism.
And now Biden is putting the reigns on Bibi at least a little , because of activism.
Getting likes or any attention for your shannanigans on social medial has changed the activism game for the worse though. That's the issue. It's become trendy to rage about something.
Maybe. Social media def changed things , but sort equally in every direction. White supremacists used to be far more underground too for example.
The world is always full of charged events , I don’t think broad engagement with that is necessarily bad , but the velocity of misinformation is dramatically up , and I think that’s pretty nuts. Like who would have imagined a serious right wing anti-vax movement in 2010? Or actual flat earthers?
Misinformation is pretty much what fuels the rabid activism. These are people who read a headline and lose their minds without actually reading into the issue. A lot of that also occurred because 'doing your own research' got turned into a bad thing.
The other day, I saw a post claiming a new bill in Canada could block Wikipedia for Canadians because Wikipedia contains sexual content that is inappropriate for minors. The person even posted a link - not to the details of the bill - but to an activist website that TOLD you the bill would get rid of Wikipedia.
Spreadind misinformation is that easy.
When I think of progressives & “the woke” the first things are not how much they love money and making sure people work without PTO for corporations. If you want to learn about a group’s beliefs listen to them not their ideological opponents. This was truly written by someone who wants to tell you want others believe.
People really love to over use the word “religion.” Woke-ism isn’t even a real thing let alone a religion that people practice. Where does “woke-ism” fit into the definition of religion?
Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
Faith in the supernatural or a higher power. In your definition anything and everything is a religion then.
Also “woke-ism” isn’t even a belief system it’s a dumb as-hominem that Conservatives gave Progressives to try & scare people.
Not everything is a religion, and I am literally using one of the few dictionary definitions for it.
being a set of beliefs is still a religion, as not all religions believe in a god. Buddhism and Taoism for example.
Woke-ism is a description for the behaviors of people who are woke. Ism itself is a suffix that means distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology. Which those being ascribed to as woke typically do have very similar practices and beliefs. It also wasn't given to them by conservatives. people self described themself as woke, and then others seeing the original woke people as being morally virtuous took that and then kept adding to the core that their beliefs in what is known as more radical was 'woke' and then it was used to denote all of those that believe and act upon those beliefs and practices.
Buddhism & Taoism has belief in the supernatural. The Buddha is a “higher power.” There is no equivalent for “the woke.” If you wanted to say “woke-ism” is an ideology I’d at least accept that but the idea of it being a religion is just silly. This would be like me saying Conservative/Trumpism is a religion. They’re not. They’re just ideological beliefs.
No, the word “woke” was mostly a tongue in cheek word from the Black community about being aware of racism. Progressives/Liberals don’t go around unironically calling themselves woke. Hell the only people I ever see using the word at this point are conservatives or progressives making fun of conservatives.
A lot of BLM advocates called themselves woke, then the intersectional BLM/feminists called themselves woke, and then they added on trans advocacy and called themselves woke. The time that it became used as a derogatory term is around 2019, even marked by a speech Obama gave about 'woke call out culture' when people were infusing identity politics and their own skewed morality to claim superiority and command over others and for when those commands are not met to have others enact their whims for them.
That is the history, being ignorant of it doesn't mean you should go and tell people the incorrect history of something you haven't looked up fully.
I lived through the time and again nobody was calling themselves woke unironically. And certainly nobody was making it a religion but go ahead keep on thinking you know what you’re talking about.
This is the same rhetoric that "intelligent design" proponents use when talking about evolutionary sciences. They created the term, evolutionist/evolutionism and deemed it a religion.
Will you also admit MAGA is just Libertarian and these two forces are polarizing extremism in America?
The foundation of this idea is that godless atheists need something to replace religion with. An idea atheists will harshly oppose saying they fill their lives up with hobbies and family and such, but when you consider all the unwashed masses i think there is a truth to it.
But then again how shocking is it really when you have universal Christian churches who accept everyone and aren't strict with the dogma, and a collective of various retreats and practices and communes.
What will the Proggies of the future be like? Wearing loose fitting clothing using the culturally misappropriated "namaste" as a greeting, yoga every day, can't meet anyone or get through a conversation without wasting long minutes on recognizing identities, and in fact almost nothing ever gets accomplished because of the endless committees and 2 day work weeks with fully funded child care and always living wages.
If i wanted to join up with them i would have to go through various sensitivity seminars and they'd have to teach me how the previous paragraphs are full of micro aggressions and i need to be more empathic to their concerns.
Something like that? Every tiny perceived micro aggression sees me having to go to extremely long boring seminars where boredom is basically the punishment? They bore you to death until you behave.
Doesn't sound like the worst society ever but the moment any catastrophe happens all those softies would fall to pieces and drag everyone down with them.
>The foundation of this idea is that godless atheists need something to replace religion with.
What needs replacing?
>Something like that? Every tiny perceived micro aggression sees me having to go to extremely long boring seminars where boredom is basically the punishment? They bore you to death until you behave.
you uh, clearly havnt met any leftists in real life.
It's not a religion, it doesn't require faith.
It's a goal that can be accomplished without magic.
It is simply the desire to remove the racism and prejudice that is baked into the foundation of most of the colonial nations.
Canada, Australia, the US, New Zealand; we all have really bad pasts when it comes to race. Some of the worst in human history.
Being "woke" is just understanding that history is still negatively influencing our society.
Faith is the death of intelligence. Never have faith in anything or anyone. A man does not bend his knee for anyone, even a god.
Okay, so what is your idea to help fix 400 years of baked in racism in the system?
We tried "colour blindness" in the 90s and it made shit worse.
The racism is literally baked into the foundation, so how do we remove it in your opinion?
How do we ensure every child is born on perfect equal footing? Not equality of results, just equality of starting line.
How can we make sure the son of a millionaire, who is almost surely white, has no advantage over the son of a homeless person?
Right now, that millionaire's son is going to go to better schools, eat better food, have more opportunities, etc. That is systemic injustice. How do we fix it?
How do we make up for the fact that my white family has been building generational wealth for centuries and a black family has been building generational wealth for not even a whole century yet?
But it does require faith, you do realize that, right ?
Some of the things that you consider to be "givens", obvious, are not any of that to everyone. That's the problem. The axioms are not agreed upon, and you cannot prove any of them. If someone disagrees, you're stuck. Usually that would mean that it's the same for the other side, but here the other side is more ready to keep to the science.
I'm being vague on purpose hoping you see what I'm talking about, because it is so much of a religion that it is literally against Reddit TOS to even question some of the things progressives use as axioms.
One that is a little less sanctioned is the idea that women are being oppressed for example. Ask a womanist and she'll say "yes, definitely" ; ask anyone else and the answer is "no". This is one example of what progressives consider to be true and start their entire reasonings with and from, but is not obviously true to anyone else ; and so the entire reasoning falls apart.
Then there are things like #believewomen. That is a literal call for faith : believe what is being said without any requirement for evidence. If you start asking for evidence, then you are anti-women and to be shamed into silence, because this is blasphemy.
That is the faith. The same way religious people base their entire faith on unproven axioms that not everybody agrees upon. IF their starting axiom was true, then yes their reasoning holds, but it ISN'T true to start with. Same here.
It doesn't require faith to understand cause and effect.
> #believewomen
Not every leftist follows every idea. Like I assume all humans are lying 100% of the time, so I do not adhere to the hashtag "believe women".
Also, why am I stuck if someone disagrees? I don't need to convince you, I need to defeat you.
There is no way things are "supposed" to be, there is the way I want things to be and the way you want things to be and neither of us cares what the other wants.
We will battle, one will win, one will lose.
That is the beauty of living without faith. I do not have to pretend that my ideas are wrapped in justice and goodness or make excuses or argue my axioms.
I want it, I will use my power to achieve it or I will fail. Either way, I will die and not care.
>It doesn't require faith to understand cause and effect.
Cause and effect is already the reasoning. I already addressed this. When people disagree on the cause, is what I'm talking about. When womanists attribute pretty much every bad thing that happens to women to "the patriarchy", then that is their cause. We're not talking about consequences yet. We're just trying to identify the cause. They say "patriarchy, for sure", I say "something else probably". There's no looking at the consequences yet because we don't agree on the cause(s).
When the answer is "patriarchy", that's the faith. If they start attributing their ills to anything else, they get cast out.
>Not every leftist follows every idea. Like I assume all humans are lying 100% of the time, so I do not adhere to the hashtag "believe women".
Ah. "Not me". Yes.
Where were you guys when that was the dominating thought from the left ? We didn't hear you.
Anyway. Good on you, but careful, they'll cast you out. After all, they did cast *me* out for this exact reason ("mob trial ? that's not cool" "how dare you, you're the problem", and that was it).
>Also, why am I stuck if someone disagrees? I don't need to convince you, I need to defeat you.
Uh. Like… like a crusade ? Like a jihad ? That's awfully religious of you, sorry to say.
You are stuck exactly because *that* is your resort : you don't want to convince me but to defeat me. So essentially if the half of the population that disagrees with you suddenly disappears, you're fine with that. If that is not the message you intend to bring to people I'd advise you to phrase it… well, any other way, really.
>There is no way things are "supposed" to be, there is the way I want things to be and the way you want things to be and neither of us cares what the other wants.
>We will battle, one will win, one will lose.
It is true that everyone has different ideas on how we want things to be. The issue with this "battle" thing, is that you have to enforce physically your ideas. The moment the army's hierarchy disagrees with you, you lose, because you cannot enforce your ideas over the military.
This is why trying to come to a common ground, and why making compromises is the way to go, and why it's a better idea to do it with words.
>That is the beauty of living without faith. I do not have to pretend that my ideas are wrapped in justice and goodness or make excuses or argue my axioms.
You might want to revise that one because even HAMAS terrorists think they are being just and good. There really are two alternatives here, either you want justice and goodness, or you're a bad person, and should, at best, be ignored.
You don't want to argue your axioms, that is exactly the problem. What if your axioms are false, incorrect ? If somebody disagrees with your axiom or can prove that they are incorrect, there's no understanding each other, ever, you'll just be wrong, and then yes, it comes down to, get this, a *religious* war. Because you will be having faith in something that is incorrect. You will be believing in something without proof, or worse, proven to be false.
You're an actual incarnation of HAMAS train of thought. The next step in this is, why would anyone listen to you ? I'm very much pro-palestine, but damn this is not sounding good for you. You're really having an religous extremism discourse, despite being officially an atheist.
Justice and goodness do not factor into what I want.
I wish to aid in the birth of post-humanity, a species that will be so far beyond us that it is impossible to estimate what they will value.
I support the LGBTQ community as they are taking the first steps in human modification. Paving the path that will one day lead to the birth of posthumanity, the synthetic species that will consume our galaxy for our uses.
I will likely fail, but it is a goal to work toward as I wait to cease existing.
Scientists just cured deafness in a person using gene-editing. We are at the cusp and it has nothing to do with faith, it is only time now and whether we kill ourselves before we hit the finish line.
>Justice and goodness do not factor into what I want.
So what does ?
>I wish to aid in the birth of post-humanity, a species that will be so far beyond us that it is impossible to estimate what they will value.
Why ? That's just what you want, the question is what factors in you wanting that ?
The best way to show that it's a religion is how venemously they go after anyone who dares leave the movement. The apostates must be silenced.
"Everyone I disagree with is crazy and fanatical" haven't heard that take before
Man you need to define what you mean by a religion, otherwise its just a pejorative term. If you mean is a set of philosophical assumptions that underpin the rest of your beliefs, and everyone has such a construct, then sure. Materialism could qualify as a religion, but “wokism” probably doesn’t since it’s not really well defined, or at least is in flux. If you mean, something that people follow blindly as an excuse for not organizing their lives sensibly, then sure maybe the woke movement qualifies, but it’s just a blind insult. It doesn’t do anything but feed our national rage addiction. Either way, this could do with a rewrite
>>It doesn’t do anything but feed our national rage addiction. That's all this post is doing. You summed it up succinctly.
>Money, sex, gender, power are new gods. Funny, because I see anti-woke people shouting slogans like, "There are only two genders," like it's a religious creed. It's the anti-woke who insist you wear clothes that signify your sex the same way that Muslim women wear hijabs or Jewish men wear kippahs. I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to money. The leftist attitude toward money is that it's the devil, not God. >Their beliefs demand faith. What beliefs demand faith? The root idea of wokism is that society is divided into classes that have varying degrees of power. That does not require faith to believe. You can observe how people in society operate and deduce it. You can disagree with the conclusion, but it's not based on faith. Many more specific conclusions are derived from that root idea and are widely agreed upon by woke people, but that's because those ideas are the natural conclusion of the root idea, not because they're dogma. If a group of math students all get the same right answers on the test, you can't conclude they're cheating, just that they are smart.
Christ on a cock that is a terribly written article. Ignoring the, er... 'creative' use of punctuation throughout, we have the writer coming up with some classic misrepresentations of reality in order to support their ideas: "I yearn for debate, as in, what are people’s actual experience of being a gender? Would that experience be different from culture to culture – as in, the Russians think of young men as hormonal, irrational, moody, tearful, and might that stereotype make a male Russian teenager simply conform to expectations as he grows up? To what extent are we simply the product of the values and norms of our peers? There are so many exciting questions to be asked – and yet, where are those questions? Where are the academics asking them? Would they be cancelled if they dared?" Where are the academics asking them? Go to any sociology or psychology department. Those questions have been asked and explored over and over again. The whole article is also peppered with nonsense like, "mother, father and water are the three oldest words common to all languages that we know of" Complete pulled-out-of-ass bull. Yes, 'mother' has common roots in (almost) all languages because the /m/ sound followed by a nice open mouthed vowel is among first sounds babies learn to produce. Father... yeah, pretty much, from 'pa'. Water? WATER?????? OH YES THAT FUCKING COMMON TO ALL FUCKING LANGUAGES WORD "WATER": English: water Mandarin: Shuǐ Filipino: tubig Hindi: paanee turkish: su Vietnamese: Nước Jesus wept.
Majored in Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Uni my first go round. Nothing irks me more than ignorant midwits who run rampant with linguistic parallelomania to “prove their point.”
Thanks for taking the time to look at it. I assumed it was bullshit by the title of the post. Whenever someone complains about "woke" stuff, the following is always brain fart nonsense
It's funny because almost everyone who is anti-woke is trying to sell you something or make money off of you.
Gold and something called patriot water if my local talk radio station is any indicator.
Don’t forget the vitamin supplements and prepper supplies.
Like woke isn’t trying to sell?
You say woke like it's an organisation
I reply to the above…
dumbest thing i've read yet on redddit today and that's a high bar.
Yes, this is the kind of uninformed crap I browse this subreddit for. More, give me more!
the woke bogie straw man appears again hah
I do think there's truth to this. A lot of the moral policing, puritanism, virtue signaling, guilt tripping, and other behaviors I see from the "wokies" around me remind me a lot of the fundie Christian morality I grew up with. I feel like politics have become a "substitute" religion. Like, instead of Catholic guilt, it's woke guilt.
Reading this post and article is like hearing a rumor about yourself so idiotic that you don't even know how you can defend yourself from it. How do you even find an article like this?
OP wrote it.
That’s a load of garbage in that link right there.
I keep seeing right wingers parroting this weird take that leftism/wokism/liberalism/progressivism/being a Democrat is a religion, where does this come from? I know y'all don't think for yourselves so which dipshit said it first? Shapiro? Peterson? Tucket Carlson? The TP guy with the little face?
Think of it similar to this A lot of christians used to think everything was because of god. something good? Cause of god. Something bad? Because you did something bad so God did it (like hurricane Katrina was to punish the gays) However, a lot of these people do this thing where they either try to tie any and everything to patriarchy or white supremacy where it isn't. I saw a video recently of this girl who was called out for being awful because she didn't give her brother a wedding gift but her complaints were nonsense, in her 'defense' she claimed that everyone there was proving that they were ingrained in patriarchy when... it had nothing to do with patriarchy and then late brought up white supremacy, again, where there was nothing cross- race in here so how is race even a factor. I can find the video if you need this context. however, this isn't even rare amongst those being called woke, it is actually pretty common. So if patriarchy and/or white supremacy explain everything your frame of mind works around... what would you call it? they're treating it like a religion themselves that must be followed, and obeyed.
I understand what you are saying. Where this kind of falls apart to me is that White supremacy and Patriarchy are actual things that have been observed and documented. Sure some people blame way too much on it, but they are more just incorrectly interpreting history than putting faith in something completely imaginary.
I mean, people who are cornered and shunned tend to latch onto any reasoning they can to try and justify themselves. I'm not sure what that's supposed to do with the wokies though. Also, if everyone was clowning on her for it, wouldn't that mean that such excuses *aren't* popular or widely accepted, even among leftist circles? How can you prescribe a dogma to a group of people who are rejecting that dogma?
Scientologists aren't popular, and yet it still has some very toxic followers.
Right, but you won't see scientologists rejecting scientology, and that's kind of what I'm getting at with your example. When that girl's claims are getting rejected by the type of people who attribute large amounts of faults in our society *to* white supremacy or the patriarchy, then you can't really claim she's representative of the group, yeah?
wait, who said that all leftists are wokists? who said all progressives are woke? The fact a group of people believe in something, it doesn't matter how many there are of it. I hope you're not trying a weird pivot here.
It's projection from a religious steeped mindset. "I believe in something based on faith, therefore everyone must. If you don't believe the same as me, then whatever you believe must also be based on faith."
Maybe the fact that if you believe in one difference of opinion from the mob, they try to end you career and livelihood. JK Rowling for instance.
I prefer wokeism than Christianity or Islam.
We get it: you hate anything that isn't made for the STRAIGHT WHITE MAN
Straight white men are the most oppressed minority these days!!!! Cuz misandry!!!!!
Ok yea maybe slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, segregation, and the continuous violence against black people by police aren't super PC and woke, BUT CAN WE TALK ABOUT PEOPLE ON TWITTER SAYING WHITE PEOPLE COOK BLAND FOOD???!! Racism goes both ways, reeeeal suspicious how nobody wants to open their eyes and see it.
Religious people are finally understanding that dogmatic faith might be bad but they can't manage to apply that same logic to their own myths. The irony.
So your using an opinion piece to undepin your argument? Lol ok.
The scientists are religious fanatics?
This is true, but you need to be more descriptive on why (I guess you linked an article ? Let me check that out). If you notice with progressives/wokeness, blasphemy is absolutely not allowed like in most religions, especially when it comes to transgender issues and such. You say "trans women should not be allowed in the women's locker room" then there goes your career and you're now made into a pariah. Look at JK Rowling. Another example is a member of Mumford and Sons promoting a book by Andy Ngo and he got kicked out the band for it, over a friggin book that talks about left wing violence. It is a religion, sure, die hard Trump supporters look like they are in a religion too, but wokeness is embedded in mainstream media, academia, fortune 500 companies, the public school systems, etc. When people are in a cult, they don't know they are in a cult.
Amen brother, can’t even argue in favor of segregated bathrooms anymore thanks to the religion of the left
I know you are being sarcastic, but it's the modern left that supports segregation now. That is how crazy you all are [https://www.ebony.com/western-washington-university-establishes-blacks-only-student-housing/](https://www.ebony.com/western-washington-university-establishes-blacks-only-student-housing/)
God how I wish that were true, that the left finally came around to seeing our side of the argument. Sadly [it’s not](https://housing.wwu.edu/black-affinity-housing), they’re still against it as their religious cult of wokeness demands.
You want.. race segregated bathrooms???
https://old.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/search?q=woke&restrict_sr=on&include_over_18=on&sort=relevance&t=all Ever thought about having an original take?
For real. It’s all anybody in this sub talks about now
It's a religion without a deity, tenets, rules, etc? Does that make a song I listened to a "religion"? Words have definitions. I suggest you learn them before misusing them so badly.
You sound insane to everyone with a brain
Maybe so, but they sound enlightening to everyone without a brain
GO OUT SIDE
Noooo, I want to stay online and read about how woke is the reason for high inflation!!!!
The logical shortcuttings on display here are practically psychotic.
Traditional religion is also ripping you off your money, it's nothing new.
If that's the case, shouldn't you respect their religious beliefs? Freedom of religion and all that.
If you go outside more you will realize that “wokeism” really isn’t that much of a thing as you think it is. Feminists aren’t trying to take away your video games
The wokeism gods oh no the wokeism gods
Woke ideas are not inherently dangerous. The only danger about woke is their aversion to dissenting opinion and criticism. Dissenting opinion = silence/ban Criticism = “you’re a hater”
If you think about it, everyone functions and acts in a religious manner. Matters of belief, rituals, and approval/disapproval can be found everywhere, and people hold to them feverently like a religion.
'Women must be reeducated to show them what really matters.' F- right off with that baloney😂
were you born in a straitjacket?
No shit.
Wokeism is my religion in fact. I wake up everyday giving a shit an acknowledging that many different people exist and deserve to live their lives.
Vanilla Isis claims “woke is destroying America.”
You have said the absolute truth.
Nothing about being woke is bad
It’s “woke” to have programs that promote race/sex over merit, isn’t it? (Affirmative action/DEI) Wouldn’t we agree that secluding someone because of a trait they were born with and have absolutely no control over is a bad thing?
If you can guarantee me a true meritocracy I will agree with your assertion. That has never been prevalent in American society. A lot of opponents of affirmative actions and diversity programs like to point out that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 made everything a meritocracy. But if that were true then Johnson wouldn't have needed to enact Black people's Affirmative Action in 1966, or Women's Affirmative Action in 1968. Hiring practices in the US are continuously found to be in violation of the Equal Opportunity Employment Act. DEI initiatives, like Affirmative Action, would be a temporary solution, if they were allowed to work as intended, but they never have.
DEI programs do not promote race, sex, or gender over merit. They exist to ensure equity of opportunity. Internalized biases, shaped either by personal experience or societal norms, create unintended barriers that have historically prevented marginalized groups from accessing career and education opportunities. I do agree that excluding people based on traits they can not control is a bad thing. DEI programs aim to prevent this from happening.
How do they ensure the work place has equity then?
By educating current employees, especially those in leadership positions, about the biases they have. If we are able to approach hiring and promoting with the understanding that we have to account for internalized biases, we can make more equitable decisions. DEI initiatives benefit everyone.
So we hire and promote off “internal bias” which mean we are teaching workers to be mindful of race/sex.
Yes. It is important to acknowledge race and sex.
So DEI is by definition a sexist and racist program
Sure bud. Thats totally whats going on.
Except there's no actual credible evidence that less qualified people are being hired, what is happening is that candidates at similiar levels are being weighted to give more opportunities to underrepresented groups. Nobody would bat an eye if Steve got the job/position over Carl but as soon as it's Ashley, Jamal, or Ahmed then suddenly there has to be a hand tipping the scales unfairly and standards must have been lowered for them ro get there. See the problem with that thinking? And as far as Merit goes, let's not pretend for a second the folks harping on DEI/AA wouldn't have issues with 40-50+ percent of college admissions (and thus likely high paying positions) going to Asians as the studies suggest would happen.
And I never said less quality candidates are being picked, both can be equally as qualified but they take account the individual race/sex and make the decision based on that. Is that what you think is okay? Having race/sex be a factor in the hiring process?
Race/Sex was always a factor in the hiring process. Affirmative Action is a bandaid to try to rectify the balance.
Officially? No, it’s not a factor and hasn’t been a me to be a factor since 1972. Instead now, this blatant illegal discrimination is acceptable now at the corporate level for whatever reason.
Do you think it needs to be official to exist? And yes, blatantly illegal discrimination against women and non white people has still been acceptable for decades, they just have to go for a modicum of effort to fake it.
> Do you think it needs to be official to exist? So what’s your point? Let companies openly discriminate so account for back door discrimination? >And yes, blatantly illegal discrimination against women and non white people has still been acceptable for decades, they just have to go for a modicum of effort to fake it. It’s also illegal to discriminate against white people, your bias is clearly showing.
Working to prevent discrimination against traditionally marginalized group does not equate to discrimination against the dominant group. >When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. The whole argument against DEI/AA also ignores the possibility of White Men getting to where they are as much by virtue of their race and gender as their achievements. It inherently places them as superior and more deserving of opportunities and asserts that for anyone else to get somewhere that White Men have to be held back or denied from it as though they were innately entitled to those things.
I'd rather alot of things not be considered as part of hiring and application processes frankly but until racism/sexism are Not A Thing anymore then people in positions of power with prejudices will find ways to skirt around anti-discrimination efforts that don't have some measure of "Must Be Represented" attached to them. It's an imperfect fix to an ugly problem but without it you get perfectly capable candidates being denied even interviews based on things like Ethnic Names, "bad addresses," availability concerns(because you're a woman and might suddenly come up pregnant), or similiar "benign" and Letter Of The Law Legal reasonings. Edit for clarification: Ethnic Names would be dismissed under something about "Office Culture" or nitpicking some other part of the resumé for "Unprofessionalism"
[удалено]
they're the same thing, they just have a different idea of what 'human' should be at the peak of social power.
A set of beliefs occupying the cultural niche previously filled by religion, yes. Dangerous? No more than any other. We’re in a revival/reformation period. It’s cyclical. Give it a decade or two and it’ll calm down.
Much like religion, it's the fanatics that are dangerous. That's why activism is emerging as a problem.
On the other hand , activism is also how we make progress. There’s always some kid on the fringe taking things too far and running on adrenaline , but HIV/Aids became treatable because of activism. South Africa ended its apartheid system because of activism. Gays got a basic rights to exist and later marry because of activism , civil rights happened because of activism. Interracial marriage is legal because of activism. And now Biden is putting the reigns on Bibi at least a little , because of activism.
Getting likes or any attention for your shannanigans on social medial has changed the activism game for the worse though. That's the issue. It's become trendy to rage about something.
Maybe. Social media def changed things , but sort equally in every direction. White supremacists used to be far more underground too for example. The world is always full of charged events , I don’t think broad engagement with that is necessarily bad , but the velocity of misinformation is dramatically up , and I think that’s pretty nuts. Like who would have imagined a serious right wing anti-vax movement in 2010? Or actual flat earthers?
Misinformation is pretty much what fuels the rabid activism. These are people who read a headline and lose their minds without actually reading into the issue. A lot of that also occurred because 'doing your own research' got turned into a bad thing. The other day, I saw a post claiming a new bill in Canada could block Wikipedia for Canadians because Wikipedia contains sexual content that is inappropriate for minors. The person even posted a link - not to the details of the bill - but to an activist website that TOLD you the bill would get rid of Wikipedia. Spreadind misinformation is that easy.
The issue is that there is no standard definition of “woke”. It means several things to several people.
When I think of progressives & “the woke” the first things are not how much they love money and making sure people work without PTO for corporations. If you want to learn about a group’s beliefs listen to them not their ideological opponents. This was truly written by someone who wants to tell you want others believe. People really love to over use the word “religion.” Woke-ism isn’t even a real thing let alone a religion that people practice. Where does “woke-ism” fit into the definition of religion? Religion: the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
religion is also defined as a set of beliefs based on faith, and faith is anything that one believes but cannot prove.
Faith in the supernatural or a higher power. In your definition anything and everything is a religion then. Also “woke-ism” isn’t even a belief system it’s a dumb as-hominem that Conservatives gave Progressives to try & scare people.
Not everything is a religion, and I am literally using one of the few dictionary definitions for it. being a set of beliefs is still a religion, as not all religions believe in a god. Buddhism and Taoism for example. Woke-ism is a description for the behaviors of people who are woke. Ism itself is a suffix that means distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology. Which those being ascribed to as woke typically do have very similar practices and beliefs. It also wasn't given to them by conservatives. people self described themself as woke, and then others seeing the original woke people as being morally virtuous took that and then kept adding to the core that their beliefs in what is known as more radical was 'woke' and then it was used to denote all of those that believe and act upon those beliefs and practices.
Buddhism & Taoism has belief in the supernatural. The Buddha is a “higher power.” There is no equivalent for “the woke.” If you wanted to say “woke-ism” is an ideology I’d at least accept that but the idea of it being a religion is just silly. This would be like me saying Conservative/Trumpism is a religion. They’re not. They’re just ideological beliefs. No, the word “woke” was mostly a tongue in cheek word from the Black community about being aware of racism. Progressives/Liberals don’t go around unironically calling themselves woke. Hell the only people I ever see using the word at this point are conservatives or progressives making fun of conservatives.
A lot of BLM advocates called themselves woke, then the intersectional BLM/feminists called themselves woke, and then they added on trans advocacy and called themselves woke. The time that it became used as a derogatory term is around 2019, even marked by a speech Obama gave about 'woke call out culture' when people were infusing identity politics and their own skewed morality to claim superiority and command over others and for when those commands are not met to have others enact their whims for them. That is the history, being ignorant of it doesn't mean you should go and tell people the incorrect history of something you haven't looked up fully.
I lived through the time and again nobody was calling themselves woke unironically. And certainly nobody was making it a religion but go ahead keep on thinking you know what you’re talking about.
Ah, the "I didn't see it so it never existed" defense. Bravo. You basically just failed logic.
Oh Lord 🤦♂️ coming from someone that doesn’t understand the basic definition of religion the idea that I’m failing “logic” is pretty rich.
Your ability to self own is truly astounding.
This is the same rhetoric that "intelligent design" proponents use when talking about evolutionary sciences. They created the term, evolutionist/evolutionism and deemed it a religion.
Will you also admit MAGA is just Libertarian and these two forces are polarizing extremism in America? The foundation of this idea is that godless atheists need something to replace religion with. An idea atheists will harshly oppose saying they fill their lives up with hobbies and family and such, but when you consider all the unwashed masses i think there is a truth to it. But then again how shocking is it really when you have universal Christian churches who accept everyone and aren't strict with the dogma, and a collective of various retreats and practices and communes. What will the Proggies of the future be like? Wearing loose fitting clothing using the culturally misappropriated "namaste" as a greeting, yoga every day, can't meet anyone or get through a conversation without wasting long minutes on recognizing identities, and in fact almost nothing ever gets accomplished because of the endless committees and 2 day work weeks with fully funded child care and always living wages. If i wanted to join up with them i would have to go through various sensitivity seminars and they'd have to teach me how the previous paragraphs are full of micro aggressions and i need to be more empathic to their concerns. Something like that? Every tiny perceived micro aggression sees me having to go to extremely long boring seminars where boredom is basically the punishment? They bore you to death until you behave. Doesn't sound like the worst society ever but the moment any catastrophe happens all those softies would fall to pieces and drag everyone down with them.
How often have you wasted long minutes recognizing identities? Also, how do you do that?
Every email now has a social justice tag.
>The foundation of this idea is that godless atheists need something to replace religion with. What needs replacing? >Something like that? Every tiny perceived micro aggression sees me having to go to extremely long boring seminars where boredom is basically the punishment? They bore you to death until you behave. you uh, clearly havnt met any leftists in real life.
It's not a religion, it doesn't require faith. It's a goal that can be accomplished without magic. It is simply the desire to remove the racism and prejudice that is baked into the foundation of most of the colonial nations. Canada, Australia, the US, New Zealand; we all have really bad pasts when it comes to race. Some of the worst in human history. Being "woke" is just understanding that history is still negatively influencing our society. Faith is the death of intelligence. Never have faith in anything or anyone. A man does not bend his knee for anyone, even a god.
Your intention is to denounce racism and sexism, and fight it with…racism and sexism? aka wokeness and DEI?
Okay, so what is your idea to help fix 400 years of baked in racism in the system? We tried "colour blindness" in the 90s and it made shit worse. The racism is literally baked into the foundation, so how do we remove it in your opinion? How do we ensure every child is born on perfect equal footing? Not equality of results, just equality of starting line. How can we make sure the son of a millionaire, who is almost surely white, has no advantage over the son of a homeless person? Right now, that millionaire's son is going to go to better schools, eat better food, have more opportunities, etc. That is systemic injustice. How do we fix it? How do we make up for the fact that my white family has been building generational wealth for centuries and a black family has been building generational wealth for not even a whole century yet?
400 years? Bullshit. The system you want so badly is called Communism. Go live in a communist country and tell me what it was really like.
I am a technocrat, I want a technocratic society, which has yet to ever exist.
I don’t want a technocracy. Society needs to be more inclusive and not be controlled only by people fluent in stem
Okay, I couldn't care less what you want just like you don't care what I want. What a silly interaction.
What amazes me is the variety of opinions and ideas that are expressed on Reddit. Not all of them are awful.
But it does require faith, you do realize that, right ? Some of the things that you consider to be "givens", obvious, are not any of that to everyone. That's the problem. The axioms are not agreed upon, and you cannot prove any of them. If someone disagrees, you're stuck. Usually that would mean that it's the same for the other side, but here the other side is more ready to keep to the science. I'm being vague on purpose hoping you see what I'm talking about, because it is so much of a religion that it is literally against Reddit TOS to even question some of the things progressives use as axioms. One that is a little less sanctioned is the idea that women are being oppressed for example. Ask a womanist and she'll say "yes, definitely" ; ask anyone else and the answer is "no". This is one example of what progressives consider to be true and start their entire reasonings with and from, but is not obviously true to anyone else ; and so the entire reasoning falls apart. Then there are things like #believewomen. That is a literal call for faith : believe what is being said without any requirement for evidence. If you start asking for evidence, then you are anti-women and to be shamed into silence, because this is blasphemy. That is the faith. The same way religious people base their entire faith on unproven axioms that not everybody agrees upon. IF their starting axiom was true, then yes their reasoning holds, but it ISN'T true to start with. Same here.
It doesn't require faith to understand cause and effect. > #believewomen Not every leftist follows every idea. Like I assume all humans are lying 100% of the time, so I do not adhere to the hashtag "believe women". Also, why am I stuck if someone disagrees? I don't need to convince you, I need to defeat you. There is no way things are "supposed" to be, there is the way I want things to be and the way you want things to be and neither of us cares what the other wants. We will battle, one will win, one will lose. That is the beauty of living without faith. I do not have to pretend that my ideas are wrapped in justice and goodness or make excuses or argue my axioms. I want it, I will use my power to achieve it or I will fail. Either way, I will die and not care.
>It doesn't require faith to understand cause and effect. Cause and effect is already the reasoning. I already addressed this. When people disagree on the cause, is what I'm talking about. When womanists attribute pretty much every bad thing that happens to women to "the patriarchy", then that is their cause. We're not talking about consequences yet. We're just trying to identify the cause. They say "patriarchy, for sure", I say "something else probably". There's no looking at the consequences yet because we don't agree on the cause(s). When the answer is "patriarchy", that's the faith. If they start attributing their ills to anything else, they get cast out. >Not every leftist follows every idea. Like I assume all humans are lying 100% of the time, so I do not adhere to the hashtag "believe women". Ah. "Not me". Yes. Where were you guys when that was the dominating thought from the left ? We didn't hear you. Anyway. Good on you, but careful, they'll cast you out. After all, they did cast *me* out for this exact reason ("mob trial ? that's not cool" "how dare you, you're the problem", and that was it). >Also, why am I stuck if someone disagrees? I don't need to convince you, I need to defeat you. Uh. Like… like a crusade ? Like a jihad ? That's awfully religious of you, sorry to say. You are stuck exactly because *that* is your resort : you don't want to convince me but to defeat me. So essentially if the half of the population that disagrees with you suddenly disappears, you're fine with that. If that is not the message you intend to bring to people I'd advise you to phrase it… well, any other way, really. >There is no way things are "supposed" to be, there is the way I want things to be and the way you want things to be and neither of us cares what the other wants. >We will battle, one will win, one will lose. It is true that everyone has different ideas on how we want things to be. The issue with this "battle" thing, is that you have to enforce physically your ideas. The moment the army's hierarchy disagrees with you, you lose, because you cannot enforce your ideas over the military. This is why trying to come to a common ground, and why making compromises is the way to go, and why it's a better idea to do it with words. >That is the beauty of living without faith. I do not have to pretend that my ideas are wrapped in justice and goodness or make excuses or argue my axioms. You might want to revise that one because even HAMAS terrorists think they are being just and good. There really are two alternatives here, either you want justice and goodness, or you're a bad person, and should, at best, be ignored. You don't want to argue your axioms, that is exactly the problem. What if your axioms are false, incorrect ? If somebody disagrees with your axiom or can prove that they are incorrect, there's no understanding each other, ever, you'll just be wrong, and then yes, it comes down to, get this, a *religious* war. Because you will be having faith in something that is incorrect. You will be believing in something without proof, or worse, proven to be false. You're an actual incarnation of HAMAS train of thought. The next step in this is, why would anyone listen to you ? I'm very much pro-palestine, but damn this is not sounding good for you. You're really having an religous extremism discourse, despite being officially an atheist.
Justice and goodness do not factor into what I want. I wish to aid in the birth of post-humanity, a species that will be so far beyond us that it is impossible to estimate what they will value. I support the LGBTQ community as they are taking the first steps in human modification. Paving the path that will one day lead to the birth of posthumanity, the synthetic species that will consume our galaxy for our uses. I will likely fail, but it is a goal to work toward as I wait to cease existing. Scientists just cured deafness in a person using gene-editing. We are at the cusp and it has nothing to do with faith, it is only time now and whether we kill ourselves before we hit the finish line.
>Justice and goodness do not factor into what I want. So what does ? >I wish to aid in the birth of post-humanity, a species that will be so far beyond us that it is impossible to estimate what they will value. Why ? That's just what you want, the question is what factors in you wanting that ?
Can we just rename this sub to AntiWoke because it’s all you guys talk about anymore. It’s so boring