Politically correct, woke or just a cultist

Beholder

Senior Member
As a person who values staying informed about discrimination and injustices directly from friends in minority groups, you can probably call me old school woke. Most people who are against discrimination are more or less woke in the true sense (being aware of social injustices when they do occur), before it became a right wing insult against loud leftists with double standards.

As a disabled person, I was recently attacked by online trolls of political correctness on a Swedish forum. My proposal was a way of speaking that respects the feelings of one group, while also being easy to understand for the elderly who can't remember anything that happened since they were young, and avoiding ambiguity for autistic people. The response was angry as if their world view was under attack. They used demeaning slurs against anyone who suggested alternatives to their ideas, sounding like racist biggots, while proudly wearing their new words of political correctness like medals of impunity. As long as they throw in a politically correct word once in a while, actually being politically correct has no meaning, because all they value is acceptance from the group by rigid dogmas. They ended up censored by left-wing moderators for their behavior.

Called it out for what it was, a cult pretending to care about the rights of oppressed minorities. They strictly adhered to the only allowed solution to all problems, without allowing any alternatives. Everyone was kept from deviating using fear of exclusion from the group. They made far fetched counter arguments that made no sense, and when they could not argue properly, anger took over with unfounded accusations of being a biggot. When I explained how they checked every box on the cultist checklists, they turned silent and probably had a lot to think about.

Most people have more common sense than them, but it only takes a few to damage the ideals of social justice. I am not against what they claim to stand for, they just don't truly stand for those ideals and I don't want to be in a cult where autonomous thinking, debate and progress is replaced with dogmatic rules enforced by social exclusion and oppression.

Politically correct used to mean acceptable by a common sense consensus. Now it just mean accepted by the select few, who use symbolism to supress guilt over failing their original mission. Political correctness is a subculture and identity surrounded by impunity, no longer a useful tool to avoid accidentally hurting others when the new politically correct words include those previously considered slurs of hatred. No progress will be made for social rights if shallow symbolism and identity politics is allowed to define politics as one or another cult throwing immature insults at the other side.

On the right-wing side of politics, it is important to distinguish between idealists and cultists, just like left-wing people need to distinguish between free thinkers who care from actual biggots. Maybe some new words are needed, to weed out the people who give both sides a bad reputation. People should not be fighting between left and right, only between common sense and counter productive dogmas.

What do you think is needed to end the cultism of identity politics?
 
Most people who are against discrimination are more or less woke in the true sense (being aware of social injustices when they do occur)
I know what you're trying to say, but please don't insinuate that I'm "woke". I believe in equal opportunity, NOT equal outcome. In the US, people can still "somewhat" go as far as they want to or their skills can take them without a "political" caste system blocking them for no good reason. If someone isn't given equal opportunity through some type of suppression, then that needs to be dealt with.

I tend to see being woke as yet another political caste system. If you don't do it the "woke way", then you don't do it at all. If you don't bend over and kiss our woke asses, then you don't do it at all. I have a problem with that, especially when there's no racism or hostilities involved. That's called control, manipulation, and suppression.

before it became a right wing insult against loud leftists with double standards.
This has never been a right wing insult in the US. Far leftists proudly call themselves "woke". The right calls them woke simply as a convenient label to identify a particular group that already identifies as "woke". I'm guilty of tacking on the word "bullshit" precisely for the reasons you have listed. In that case, I intend it to be derogatory for precisely the reasons you listed, and will add a few more further down based on my own experience.

political correctness on a Swedish forum.
Being "politically" correct has always been a form of government control of speech. Yes, it did start out innocent before it was corrupted by the left. It seems the left constantly corrupts everything.

My proposal was a way of speaking that respects the feelings
I have no problems with people expressing themselves so long as they intend to have an honest debate vs. being preached at and attacked when rebutting them with facts by hostile wokes. Sometimes these "wokes" just need to walk away when they can't wind the argument and resort to vitriol. They never even consider they could be wrong. Their egos are far too large.

The response was angry as if their world view was under attack.
You're quite right, for the reasons I've already given and will give. They're "government worshipers". I intend for that term to be derogatory for reasons already given and will give. Their false religion (cult) was attacked, and it hurt their feelings. They're snowflakes (unfortunately according to the "new" dictionary term).

They used demeaning slurs against anyone who suggested alternatives to their ideas, sounding like racist biggots, while proudly wearing their new words of political correctness like medals of impunity.
I've already run across this earlier this morning, elsewhere. I'm giving an expanded answer of what I gave there, which will be further below. The problem I run into is that I don't know how to describe these people and what they do politely. I guess that's a failing on my part, but I do try to keep my colorful descriptions close to traditional dictionary descriptions and not recently made up and manipulated terms.

Through what I continually experience, I find "wokes" to be some of the most bigoted, racist, self righteous, closed minded, and hateful people I've ever encountered... for reasons already given and will be expanded upon on this page.

They ended up censored by left-wing moderators for their behavior.
I find this surprising. So long as they're mindlessly spewing out LWO propaganda, they usually get away with it. I define LWO as the new NWO rebranded, and I intend for that term to be derogatory.

Called it out for what it was, a cult pretending to care about the rights of oppressed minorities.
Exactly why I call them "government worshipers".

To be clear: I have no issues whatsoever of people helping out other people, WITH THEIR OWN TIME AND MONEY! The government "claims" to help people, but when properly investigated, they waste A LOT, and they end up failing in their "claimed" goals A LOT. When confronted, the government and its worshipers then proceed to call me a racist, bigoted, hater who beats children... To which I answer, "Yes, I also bite the heads off kittens". That usually gives them a coronary embalism.

Everyone was kept from deviating using fear of exclusion from the group.
I came to the conclusion many years ago that I'd rather be alone than in an LWO group. When closely examined, I cannot justify their true beliefs nor their actions. (See everything already said as typical examples.) I have trouble understanding why the LWO is the "in-group" when their so descriminatory, but claim to be otherwise. They're only inclusive if you're a hard core cultist who never questions them.

They made far fetched counter arguments that made no sense, and when they could not argue properly, anger took over with unfounded accusations of being a biggot.
Sheeple often do that. Try not to feel too bad. They can't think for themselves. Leftist propaganda is impossible to justify, so they can't without using false circular reasoning.

When I explained how they checked every box on the cultist checklists, they turned silent and probably had a lot to think about.
This gave me a good laugh. :) It's why I call them "government worshipers".

Most people have more common sense than them, but it only takes a few to damage the ideals of social justice.
This is why we should have real debates, without the "cancel culture"... which is pretty much what you just said without outright saying "cancel culture". See my propaganda sentence above.

Politically correct used to mean acceptable by a common sense consensus. Now it just mean accepted by the select few, who use symbolism to supress guilt over failing their original mission.
It's what the liberal elite define it as, and if you're not in the "in-crowd", you risk being ostracized. That goes against natural human tendencies to be part of a group, and sheeple don't like being blackballed. I've seen some liberal commentators not being "woke enough" and be blackballed. The LWO eats their own.

No progress will be made for social rights if shallow symbolism and identity politics is allowed to define politics as one or another cult throwing immature insults at the other side.
This is exactly what the LWO wants. You hit the nail on the head, here.

On the right-wing side of politics, it is important to distinguish between idealists and cultists, just like left-wing people need to distinguish between free thinkers who care from actual biggots.
There are free thinkers on both sides. I think it's more of a range from cultists to idealists to whatevers who don't really care. The "whatevers" are the swing vote who don't want to be left out of the group (see above). Idealists aren't necessarily bad so long as they accept reason. Cultists, well...

The big problem with left wing cultists (and partially the idealists) is that they (perhapsly cluelessly and unknowingly) stand for total government control and domination. This is what "far left" really means. This takes away free will. This is not OK.

The idealists are a bit "ideal" in thinking that some made up philosophy that isn't entirely based on reality can "ideally" work. The "ideal" part refuses to take into account human nature, which can and does lead to major failures in the philosophy part. Then they double down and say it has to go to "X Level" to actually work, when "X Level" is never achievable. Then it leads to the cult. This proceeds to take away free will. This is still not OK.

What do you think is needed to end the cultism of identity politics?
The coming civil war with the cultists. This will be bloody and nasty. The cultists will label it as the far right nazis going insane and rebelling against sanity. The right (and maybe some of the moderate left) will label it as liberation from stupidity. Whoever wins gets to label it.

Let's step aside for a moment and have a word about the word "nazi". Wikipedia gets part of the definition WRONG! The "far left" who use this word against the "far right" are MORONS! And I use the word moron according to the dictionary definition. Before the word "nazi" was rebranded to something totally incorrect, it used to mean "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". (and it still seems to refer to national socialism.) There's nothing "far right" about socialism. There's absolutely nothing far right about "national socalism". National socialism seems to be a form of facism, which is a form of heavy government control. If far left is communism, socialism, totalitarian government, and total government control in general, then far right is some form of anarchy without any government at all. The various socialisms and anarchy are about as far apart as you can get. So... if someone ever calls you a nazi, be sure to correct them, and then ask them who the nazi really is. It will give them an embolism.

Back on topic, I rarely hesitate to bash being far left and wokism because it is a toxic mentality. Praising people for their "government approved hate" is poison to the soul. For my entire life, it always seems to push to the "cult" end of the spectrum. It sucks you got caught up in this, but I think you understand it from what you've already written... and you aren't the first nor the last to be jumped on like that.
 
So... if someone ever calls you a nazi, be sure to correct them, and then ask them who the nazi really is. It will give them an embolism.

Back on topic, I rarely hesitate to bash being far left and wokism because it is a toxic mentality. Praising people for their "government approved hate" is poison to the soul. For my entire life, it always seems to push to the "cult" end of the spectrum. It sucks you got caught up in this, but I think you understand it from what you've already written... and you aren't the first nor the last to be jumped on like that.
One of their theories the critical theory was first formulated in the Weimar Repulic (Second Reich) and they fall from grace for a reason.

For those that dont know critical theory:

Critical theory sees the overrepresentation of a group as systemic and institutional discrimination and then blames the group as evil that is overrepresented and dehumanize them. So critical theory does not blame hemselves for this overrepresentation they blame others.

The logic of critical theory is not new and always existed because you always have to have somebody to blame if things go wrong. Jews were not hated because they were the minority. They were hated because they were overrepresented. That was different from other minorities like Romani people, political opponents, Jehovahs witnesses, homosexuals and so on.

This is a summary of the Jewish representation:
In the early twentieth century, a dense corporate network was created among thelarge German corporations ("Germany Inc."). About 16% of the members of thiscorporate network were of Jewish background. At the center of the network (biglinkers) about 25% were Jewish. The percentage of Jews in the general populationwas less than 1% in 1914. What comparative advantages did the Jewish minorityenjoy that enabled them to succeed in the competition for leading positions in theGerman economy? Three hypotheses are tested: (1) The Jewish economic elite hada better education compared to the non-Jewish members of the network (humancapital). (2) Jewish members had a central position in the corporate network,because many of them were engaged in finance and banking. (3) Jewish memberscreated a network of their own that was separate from the overarching corporatenetwork (social capital). The density of this Jewish network was higher than that ofthe non-Jewish economic elite (embeddedness). Our data do not support any ofthese hypotheses. The observed correlation between Jewish background andeconomic success cannot be explained by a higher level of education, a higher levelof social capital, or a higher proportion of Jewish managers engaged in (private)banking.

So these wokies use Nazis ideology to justify their hate. The Nazis also thought their racism was justified for the same reason the woke people thought their racism is justified.

Basically it is good for Germany, because on the long run, the world will understand through these wokies how a whole country could develop in a way in which they did with this hatred against Jews.

It is not good for the world becuase it is a negative ideology, but the only thing you can do is correct their mistakes and say that their class system is racist, sexist, bigoted.

The only way forwards is if you treat people equally. A class system that values some people more than others leads to negativity.
 
"As a person who values staying informed about discrimination and injustices directly from friends in minority groups, you can probably call me old school woke. Most people who are against discrimination are more or less woke in the true sense (being aware of social injustices when they do occur), before it became a right wing insult against loud leftists with double standards."


Not true. The difference is right wing is against ALL discrimination. The left doesn't like white people. The way you phrased that sounds like you said the topic of discrimination insults right wingers. It couldn't be further from the truth. The woke movement involves a lot more than discrimination. A lot of it has to do with indoctrinating children, gender issues, etc. This is a touchy subject and a lot of arguing could happen with others. Be forewarned.

On the right-wing side of politics, it is important to distinguish between idealists and cultists, just like left-wing people need to distinguish between free thinkers who care from actual biggots. Maybe some new words are needed, to weed out the people who give both sides a bad reputation. People should not be fighting between left and right, only between common sense and counter productive dogmas.

The "cult" term was something the media made up to insult right wingers. It's what MSM calls anyone who isn't a leftist. If we disagree, we must be in a cult. Again, not even true. Most right wingers worship Jesus or nobody. We don't worship Trump. We just know he can fix this country.
 

Top