I'm tired of this word "Woke"

@BRUUH 😅🤣😂🤣😅🤣😂😅🤣😅🤣

@BRUUH I think it's really revealing to see how conservatives define 'Woke' when they're under oath:

@ElwoodBlues so the lawyer used a silly definition... and?

@BRUUH Normally I would respond the same way @masterofyou did, but I think you're one of the few good faith people here who is just severely misguided, as opposed to the actual Nazis who are knowingly trying to sell repackaged Nazism.


Cultural Marxism was based on Cultural Bolshevism, which in turn was based on Jewish Bolshevism. And even that was based on conspiracy theories common in Europe going back to the Middle Ages. We're talking about something that can't be true because there's a concerted effort to change the conspiracy theory in order to better sell it to the public based on the region and period. That's why the theory went from outright blaming the Jews, to only implying that it's the Jews when anti-jewish conspiracy theories fell out of favor.

And of course, the Nazis didn't just mean political correctness has gone too far. Cultural Bolshevism was the idea that Marxist Jews are brainwashing people with degenerate ideas in order to turn people into Marxists. And the "degeneracy" was anything the Right didn't like. Atheism, gender non-conformity, jazz, and so on. We're not talking about SJW cucks being annoying on social media here.


Which ideas? Most of mainstream sociology has been based on Marxism for almost a century now. The reason these idea haven't fallen out of favor is because they're always proven correct. It's the reason Marx's ideas are considered "Modernism" now. These are the ideas that make up western sociology.

And like I said before, the fact that people think Marxism and Postmodernism aren't polar opposites shows how uninformed Neo-Nazis are. Postmodernism is a rejection of Modernism.

@BRUUH
No, I didn't say the motives of the argument are bad. I said we know the argument isn't true because people repackaged the argument to make it easier to sell, depending on the country and period.

It would be like me saying, I was walking in the park, saw an angel, and elves stole my wallet. But then I find out most people don't believe in elves. So I say, I was walking in the park, saw an angel, and it was actually midgets that stole my wallet. You know I'm lying, because I changed the story depending on the audience.

And there's no evidence that sociologists are trying to make Communism work through the promotion of "degeneracy." Sociologists accept that material conditions drive society because that's objectively true. Marx was correct. But either way, this wouldn't be Cultural Marxism, which is an actual conspiracy theory.


Sure, but Marxist Jews weren't promoting degeneracy as part of some grand conspiracy to make society degenerate so that they could take over after everyone accepted Marxism. The truth is that "degeneracy" was just popular stuff. Even before Marx was born, there were artistic and social movements that the Nazis would later condemn for being degenerate and Jewish, like dada art. Personally, I think dada is lazy trash, but a lot of people like it.


I've literally never heard this. Maybe some kids at your college thought this, but were the professors actually saying that? And this isn't part of Marxism. Marx didn't really talk about gender.


That's not intersectionality. Intersectionality is the idea that a person has multiple experiences that cause a sort of umbrella experience.
So for example, I've had the white experience. But I've also had the male experience, the cis experience, the bisexual experience, and so on. Depending on which groups a person belongs to, we can tell what kind of oppression they're more likely to come across. For example, a person who is gay and male will face discrimination and challenges that a person who is gay and female won't, because our society is more homophobic when it comes to men.


You're confusing sex and gender. Males and females are biological categories, that's sex. Gender is a social construct.

TBH, it sounds like you're still being good faith, but you just don't understand a lot of leftist theory.

@BohemianBabe [quoteNo, I didn't say the motives of the argument are bad. I said we know the argument isn't true because people repackaged the argument to make it easier to sell, depending on the country and period][/quote]
That doesn't invalidate it either tho. logically sound argument can still fail to appeal to people (because human bias, etc) and can be repackaged by people who wanna sell it still. Just because the arguments are bad, doesn't mean the conclusions are. The only part of it's historical roots I disagree with is the emphasis on jews being disprportionately involves, and sometimes the scale of how far it spreads in culture.

I love you and wanna hug you. I feel like the fact you never have while I did, is an example of why people who differ on things need to talk more.
I'v heard it a few times bro. The first time was some bi-racial dude on Jesse Lee Peterson show, who was a professor and had a degree in like "whiteness studies" or something. So, literally a professor. He said african society was naturally matriarchal, and that is total, and utter bullshit. The Ghana empire... Ghana literally means "warrior king" not "warrior queen". People argue all the time that bonobos are our closest ancestors, and they are matiarchal, so patriarchal norms are all socially constructed. I actually don't take sides because what human beings are like in "nature" is WAY to complex of a topic. I personally think that human beings, with our frontal lobe, are unique in the animal kingdom with our ability to set things up based on abstract ideas an logic as opposed to our instincts. I also think the reason why people push gender equality as a natural thing is because they want it as a political goal, and you could literally just invoke the naturalistic fallacy instead and say that gender equality may not be normal, but we aren't beasts of the field and should still embrace it.


I mean you're triyng to give a more acedemic definition while i'm just sorta giving a raw "this is what the fuck it really is let's be fucking real" definition. It seeks to explain how different parts of your identity effects your experience, namely how being white makes you benefit from white supermacy, being rich makes you benefit from capitalism, and how these things all come together to give you oppression points. It's basically all bullshit anyway. Latinos in 2024 are not more oppressed than white people.There are far, FAR more double standards white people are held to than latinos and blacks.


Gender as a word and concept never meant anything to do with humans. That came later. It was literally about whether inhuman objects were considered masculine or feminine, like nouns. The new application of the word is insanity. Gender identity? It's no less insane than if I had a word to denote whether someone was a dog, bird, or human not in reference to their biology, but with regards to the norms and identity they embrace. It's as silly.

But this is off topic and also doesn't matter, because I'm pretty sure most lefitsts would argue that males and females differing in temperment is all due to environment. Granted, some of it actually is. Also, I think women being into masculine shit, and men being in to feminine shit, is fine.

@BRUUH
But it's not like they changed the way the argument was explained. They changed the conspiracy itself in ways that made it seem more current. Keep in mind, this conspiracy is older than Marxism itself. They added Marxists to the theory, probably just because the early Marxists were Jews.
They also changed the location. In Cultural Marxism, it's America. In Cultural Bolshevism, it was Germany. In Jewish Bolshevism, it was Russia. And before that, it was anywhere in Europe where the kings wanted to direct attention away from their own corrupting. You're not poor because of the king, you're poor because... uhh... the Jews! Or the Atheists! Or homosexuality! Or Marxism! Or wokeness! Whatever deflects away from the ruling-class.


Well, he's wrong. And like I said, that has nothing to do with Marxism. Marx didn't really talk about gender much.

Also, Jesse Lee Peterson is gay. I know that has nothing to do with this, I just find it funny because he's yet another homophobe who turned out to LOVE THE COCK.


When people talk about "gender equality," it usually refers to how people are shut out of certain fields based on gender, and this refers to both laws and social norms.

For example, there will always be more men in construction because men are generally stronger. But how come for decades, women were discouraged from playing chess? Why was chess seen as a man thing?
"Gender equality" doesn't mean we need an equal amount of men and women in every field. It means they should both be welcomed in every field. We shouldn't be discouraging little girls from becoming scientists or playing chess.


It's not about oppression points, it's about recognizing how people are affected by various forms of prejudice or bigotry. And it seems like you agree with this. I've said here that Israel is built on Jewish Supremacy. If you're Jewish in Israel, you can benefit from that, but you might still be screwed if you're born into poverty. You agree with that, right?


Sure, that's how language works. We use words to describe concepts. Sex and gender always existed as two separate things, even if the wording wasn't there.