Thread

This info is very interesting.

And what is the positive of being less woke? To learn to close the eyes, when someone feels uncomfortable. Trying the best to focus on personal pleasure instead of the common good? Or what is your personal problem with woke (Being active, sensitive and not just accepting cultural tendencies, as they are. Thinking critically about what is going on around you)

Pfft. Being a leftist delusional zomboid does no one any good at all.

Here's a bit of hidden history on the labor movement. https://fountain.fm/episode/TMCKynqA08xa5TIbtBBv

Dumb ass kid had his politics used against him to get him to give up a day off. Labor day wasn't a communist holiday. At the time labor day was created as a federal holiday, the labor unions were voluntary association. You could work in union shops without joining. There might even be competing unions at your work for you to pick from already. In fact, many anarchists believe that the historical model of unions from that time is the free and voluntary association way of accomplishing many of the protections for workers that the legal system attempts to provide today. Anarchists being pro union would not have seemed strange to people of that time. 2 dates were considered for the holiday, one in may and one in September. Both were considered because they were planned recurring strike days by the unions. May had more history of the strike becoming violent, while September tended to be cookouts. The government chose September because they were worried the historically more violent day would become about the anarchist movement. But the socialists you say. That word has changed. Today socialism basically means government enforced, aka communism. Earlier, there were competing definitions. Socialism often meant that the workers of the business held shared ownership of the business, instead of a single owner hiring workers. This was still a profit seeking business with no government involvement under that model. Look up anarcho-syndicalism for more about how unions work under anarchy. Look up libertarian socialism for more about how a socialist business can be a free thing that doesn't use government force to achieve its goals. They aren't perfect ideologies, but their ideas hold important truths if people want to be free. Early model unions and libertarian socialism are both powerful answers to "without a government some other bully will come along and exploit people even worse." I don't think it is a coincidence that those words have become corrupted and earlier meanings lost to time.

Unionization was broken by economics, not policy. Workers got too many rights and had babies faster than developing the resources to care for them, so the babies grew up to suffer as punishment. Then we got the fucked up hell society we have today. Political preferences like "communist or capitalist" have little bearing on an underlying human sequence of events like this Communists and capitalists both enjoy high quality of life -> both enjoy having babies -> both can be lazy and forget to develop the resources for childcare while having babies -> both worked together on this and now blame each other for it lol

I wouldn't cast shade on the kid. We don't know what we don't know. But the Rough Extraction episode basic lays out what you are saying and why it made sense. A very exploitative-corporate model had emerged, human dignity demanded a response. As the political map gets reoriented, labor unions discussion is going to be hard for some. Must get past the WWE political narrative first. Most importantly, this history rhymes with today's de-humanization in the AI revolution.

The luddites were were from not too far away in time and also an anti "companies using technology to dehumanize their workers" movement. Not surprising we see them also coming back when wealth inequality tips back into the range last seen during the robber baron era. We could learn from the successes and failures of the movements of that era. Instead we were trained in school that they were all bad so we'll have to reinvent the wheel or get bulldozed by the oligarchs this time.

I evaluate people by their actions. When a person invests their energy to support minorities, when they can not defense themselfes properly, to me this is heroic. When someone is brave and stands up for weaker individuals, even when it is not profitable. This is virtue, no matter the political label. To what standards do you evaluate people?

The only minority I care about is the individual. I don't do groups outside of family and close friends. You want to use force to make me and others comply with whatever sewer-system flotsam passes for morality this week. I'm against thee use of force except to defend me and mine.

That is your fair and wise choice to not think in groups. Treating everyone as individual I totally agree with. I would not want to use violence for anything else than selfdefense. Solidarity with someone who is defending I would also consider part of selfdefense. It seems we stand for very similar values. Even when you try hard to be against my arguments. 😉

Nope. You want to involve too many people in my life. That's entirely not cool.

Whom do I invite to your life? You can be as alone as you want. As long as you do not seek to have power over others individual decisions.

Anyone claiming to be woke that I've met is a leftist collectivist.

Being caring and understanding isn't the same as trying to rescue people that don't want to be rescued or affirming peoples denial of reality. The best way to help someone is to guide them to reality, not to affirm their delusions or encourage them in their destructive behavior. Most colleges today are so busy making people feel good about themselves that they teach students to deny reality and affirm their destructive behavior making college graduates dumber than when they started college.

Wokeness is extreme sensibility, it's cartering to someone's emotions, and not offending, or upsetting them at all when the truth is sometimes hurtful but that pain is necessary for improvement. The real world is a painful thing, only in America do we have the luxuries of being separated from it but reality always seeps in one way, or another.

Not that the woke / collectivist / individual discussion in the thread is unimportant in our time. But it is interesting that's where the discussion went.... The labor movement is one thread of a bigger cord. How do we remain human in the midst of anti-human ideologies/technologies? Looms, chemical weapons, coal mines, assembly lines, propaganda, McKenzie consulting, algorithms, AI, etc. It's a spiritual war. Enlightenment thinking can't solve it, because it caused it.

Anyone who repairs any sort of thing for fun on money knows that step 1 of fixing the problem is understanding where and how it went wrong.

Ok. So you do not talk about me or my comments, as an individual. You talk about me as part of an imaginary group you create? This does not seem a fair assessment to me.

It is true, that some people also simply do not want to see the truth. But very clearly, wokeness is not about being very selsible to be offended asap. Being real woke means to not close the eyes only because a truth is uncomfortable. To act for change even when it means a lot of resistance. It is not about denying hurtful truth. But about talking about it onpenly and searching for solutions. To lower causation of unfairnes, where it is possible. How life is percepted is a personal interpretation. You can interpret it as painful and hard when you want. To me this is not what matters. What matters is that I stand for a fair distribution. And I am aware that fairness is like a ridge. A lot of space for more or less unfair situations, while only one line represents fairness. So fairness has a small probability. But to me it is worth to invest a lot of energy in a fair world anyways.

I am all with you. I would not affirm people in denying reality. Therefore I would not question anyones sexual orientation. Since this is their freedom as mine is my freedom. Therefore I accept every religion, but treat their books for what they are. Fictional stories, to give good examples. To percive reality, I beliefe in the power of criticism. I question models myself until I understand them to a level I feel comfortable defending them. Paper takes every word without questioning. So I have to filter reality from fantasy. Filter truthseeking sources from propaganda. Filter high quality sources from lower quality. And know what to use them for. I am very happy to have learned to questing everything and come to my own conclusions. Knowledge is the source of real power. And the very knowledgable people will always have authority, while authority does not mean a person is knowledgable.

What is fair?

Great question. I will try my best to anwer it, without certainty, I will satisfy the whole meaning. I think fairness is mostly a probability game and is defined relatively. I think for any circumstances/game to be fair the rules have to be transparent. So for example in a game of roulett, the rules are clearly defined. So when I am the Casino, I participate in the knowledge to win about 53% of the games. And every participants knows he can win 47% of the games. So there is a unfair probability. But when both parties decide freely to participate, this is fair. It would be unfair, when one party is forced to play or when one party cheats. So to summarize again. 1. Transparent rules 2. freedom to participate or not 3. No participant cheats

You seem to classify yourself as woke. That means you're generally aware of what that implies and are OK with it, in which case, you're a gross leftist twit, or you are dumb enough to call yourself that when you don't know what it means, and are therefore just an idiot and not worth taking seriously.

But how far does that go, should every young man be taught about dating at a young age like women are? Should teenagers/high schoolers be taught about finance. Should people be mandated to go to religious institutions to learn wisdom, and hope? Should kids be taught programming basics? The System is inherently unfair, at least politically because no one is taught about lobbying, political donations, gerrymandering, voter manipulation, voter suppression, etc. I'm not saying that the world should be unfair but it is, some have advantages over others in something, and that's what makes life fun, where some excel, others don't. Unfairness, and inequality build strength, character, and resilience. To me, what is fair is give people who work the hardest access to better opportunities, that seems fair enough but of course favoritism always wins, and that's not fair but it's fair to those who know how to be yes men, so who knows?

I think a great society gives children andladults access to learn about all these points, when they decite for it. I do not say everyone has to have the same. But that having transparent information is the main part to fairness. All individuals have some differentiations from others. And therefore our intrest can differ, we can want different things and do different things. Someone likes producing something manually, an other person likes managing others. But a working society needs both of them. Not one or the other is more important. Both are important for their different talents. When there is a lack of transparency with garry mandering, lobbying and so on, there is opportunity to create more content about it. To make it publicly available. Because I argue these systems are not inherently unfair. They are unfair today, because some people have eighter no access or very difficult access to these informations. When more information is public, clearly people still have to read it and inform themselfes. But once it is public it is only about effort. It is fair. Whoever then puts in the effort can get to know about a concept. This is free market capitalism at its fullest. Free market capitalism works more efficient as more fairness there is.

You are so unimpressive... I do not care too much what chronically offensive people like you argue. First you have to have an argument that counts before your attacks start to get intresting to me...

Correct. I am certainly unimpressive. So are you. The difference is that I don't claim to anything other than a mildly amusing occasionally useful idiot. Other than that, I'm not attacking you, just confused and pointing out things about what you note that just don't make any sense to anyone with a modicum of logical ability. You really do have a holier-than-thou attitude that amuses me since, in my limited experience, you are just an officious numpty. So, there's your name calling and I'll very likely mute you since you are simply boring at this point.

You have quiet a rare self-perception. But this is obvious to whatever reader. Go on your way, have a great day ;)