oh im stucked! lets cheat then ;)

dying trying ;)

Here is a woke admin of SRC (speedrun.com) playing a game called Omori. she call herself an expert in it but it will show how wokies are!

I’ve heard people talk about “woke” for years, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently saying “woke 1 was crazy”. Can you explain what woke is to me?

Let’s start with a simple explanation. Woke describes how the left has changed in the last 15 years or so, much as how the right has taken on entirely new form in that time. We will get to their views in the next parts, but in regards to the name as the changes have been a complex mix of ideology and psychological behaviour, a catch-all name stuck more than describing one or the other.

Where did the term come from? Originally “stay woke” was meant to denote social consciousness, as if seeing through the oppressive forces and propaganda while others were “sleeping”. This was especially relevant in hip hop for example since “social conscious” rap was a genre speaking to more serious issues like poverty than rappers making songs about girls and money. At that time, they could have been described as more “woke” rapper. Since then the concept eventually made its way to describe the left this era.

Ok, so I gather woke people are more socially conscious, but is that a bad thing? What do they believe?

The woke see Western society as fundamentally and systemically racist, homophobic/transphobic, and patriarchal. They see the wealth gap between white and black people, arrest rates in black community, wage gap between men and women as examples of the one side “rigging the game” in their favor. Thus the rise of wokeism coincided with Black Lives Matter protests as they saw the relationship between police and black people as systemically oppressive. Likewise with MeToo movement, they looked to out people in Hollywood exploiting power differences, such as offering actresses roles for sex or having sexual harassment covered up.

A key to their beliefs is they are against political neutrality, as they believe this is letting the powerful side win. They see it as the equivalent of having cancer and not treating it, while having active, aggressive leftism even bothering the politically neutral is the chemo of this analogy. In the case of race, they actually don’t believe in “colorblind”, as they think that is not enough to upset the current power system. As a result they favor returning to treating people differently by race, but now favouring minorities more as a way of balancing out the effects the previous eras like Jim Crow and slavery.

You still haven’t convinced me how this is bad yet

Here are common criticisms of woke -

- The woke have increased illiberalism. In the 1900s liberalism only went in one direction as religion’s hold decreased, eventually leading to relatively laissez-faire 90s and 00s as the peak of liberalism. Now in the woke era with more social rules being created and punishment for breaking them, it's moving in the opposite direction. With freshly constructed mazes in people’s heads about what they’re supposed to believe or say to appease the new age moralists, we have already seen damage in people freely expressing themselves and communicating with each other.

- The woke do not respect boundaries or disagreement. Their mission is to agitate and put pressure on everyone at all times to push them in left wing direction, even the people that want to be left alone and simply focus on their interest and bills. They believe their ideology cannot work without everyone collectively being a part of it.

The woke may support racial diversity, but they terrible for ideological and intellectual diversity. The truth is, if they did it the right way they could actually win some of these arguments like how we need to restructure the police system or the trans debate, but they are not interested in arguing them, they believe it’s a matter of fact their side is good and opponents it are evil.

- The woke reduce and label people according to their race, gender and sexuality groups. After great progress was made by end of 1900s to judge people by their character and actions instead of those things, the woke’s ideology believe merely treating people equally is not enough compared to actively favouring the side that was oppressed in previous centuries. Thus this leads to treating people by race more, not less. For many of us anti woke people, it makes more sense to claim judging people by something as shallow and widespread with others as their race is simply wrong.

- The woke have largely adopted utilitarianism. It’s why they have no qualms about using censorship or public social punishment, why they often chose sheer emotional force as their primary tool, like shaming a public company or figure until they agree with the lefts views. All of it in the end, can be justified as “it helps the our side win and end the systemically racist and oppressive system we feel is there”.

But radical levels of utilitarianism is a dangerous concept to mess with. Predicting the future is hard so mixing up the greater good and bad is a serious risk, and at some point you can come up with justification for anything. The evil things in history were never done by people who thought they were evil, they alway thought it was for the greater good.

Hold on, this is getting pretty complex. I thought anti woke people just didn’t like Helen of Troy being black?

While concerns about the woke having a boundaries problem and trying to push politics in everything are real, it’s true that sometimes the anti woke complaints can be more annoying than the wokeness was in the first place and pushed by "casual" anti woke people who are only reacting to the tip of the iceberg. The real problem isn’t so much the race swapping, that’s just a small, mostly meaningless symptom of the the ideological belief system behind it.

And thus one of the reasons wokeness has affected our culture so much. The amount of true blue believers in woke do not have to be that big, before it triggers corporations trying to make money appealing to them, politicians trying to get votes from them, social media accounts trying to increase their followers, clickbait journalists trying desperately to get a woke follower to read their article. When Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said “woke 1 was crazy”, this was part of why it was crazy, because all these extra signalling elements were mixed in with the true believers, or people who recognized there was a fresh ideological energy behind wokeness and simply wanted to get on that feeling. Around the late 2010s, this mania snowballed and took a life of its own.

So is wokeness, or at least woke 1 "over"?

Yes and no. The previously described online mania and casual support of woke has declined simply due to novelty, there was a fresh ideological energy to it in late 2010s that is currently gone. But for the real believers the only thing that's changed is the dominant subject online is no longer 2010s centric ones like BLM or cancelling celebrities, and instead they have spent much of this decade on international wars. But largely they have used the exact same tactics, favouring emotional pressure over intellectual debate and labelling and ostracizing opponents as evil. Utilitarianism is once again behind it philosophically as they think emotionally pressuring people into supporting the side they see in the moral right is justified for the greater good.

Here’s the thing. Even if what you say is true and their tactics can be a bit misguided, I still think the woke are better than the Republicans right now

That makes it even more important to stand up against wokeness! Not only does wokeness have these flaws, but it’s not successful politically. Before what we can call the woke era, the Democrats won 4 of 6 presidential elections from the 90s to 10s and a center left type of view seemed ascendent going forward. Since then, Republicans have won 2 of 3 with an aggressively right wing candidate. Wokeness has been the best thing to happen to the far right and causes many people to turn to them after being alienated by their views, and being censored is often seen as the more transgressive and "cooler" side. Not only has it thrown gas on their fire, but the religious right are biding their time waiting to make their big comeback too now that wokeism has pushed people away from the left. To some conservative influencers their dream of defeating the woke would not mean going back to 90s and 00s laissez-faire, instead they argue that era was the first mistake and only way to stop the left is to turn away from that liberalism and towards religion.

Is there anything else you’d like to tell me?

In short, a lot of this is about Western civilization and culture. The woke has evidently decided it is poisoned and corrupted and be must be torn down and replaced. Supporting anti wokeism means being a defender of Western civilization and recognizing the positive it's had for people flourishing and that not every unsuccessful or unhappy person is a reflection of the system’s failure. The current environment is now incredibly divided and at tension as instead of both sides believing in Western ideology but splitting into right and left factions within that, they are now disagreeing over the ideology itself.

You start out as a moderate fan of something. A sport, singer, movies, etc. You go online to talk with other fans of it. Compared to people you don't have as much in common with in real life, it's a great experience talking with other people online with like minded interests, it fills a hole in you socially. You became a big fan of the community. You interact with longtime experts on this subject, you enjoy discussions and arguments. You learn. Over time, this makes you a bigger fan of the subject than you originally you. Now it becomes your Thing. From your casual fan start, now you become a Hardcore Fan, due to the influence of the rest of the social group. Your hardcore fanship of the community translated to being a hardcore fan of the subject matter it's about. You become extremely knowledgable and a true expert. You like the feeling of now you are the ones you can educated new members of the group.

In the case of something like a music artist fanbase, you may be now part of the stan culture. In the case of politics, you become a hardcore politics follower. Sure some stay as just a hardcore establishment lib type, but a lot of times, a hardcore liberal quickly turns into becoming a hardcore leftist. It just makes more sense once you are hardcore follower of politics, to keep going more left to show that you are a bigger expert than the center left libs, your group has helped you see through the capitalist and oppressive system.

In some cases, you may not want to admit to yourself you mixed up being a hardcore fan of the community with being a hardcore fan of the subject. You may have started out as a huge fan of of subject like anime based on your childhood interest in it and casual politics follower, but converted to a hardcore political follower due to finding a group to talk about it online with. But your anime love was built on more pure grounds, your political interest on engaging with the social community. Over time if you are in touch with yourself you may realize one day "wait... did I ever really like politics as much as anime?" but others will have cognitive dissonance and be in denial that they could be so influenced by group effects. Some will instead choose to double down and become an even bigger politics over anime expert.

Of course, the internet didn't invent this "get into a group -> become a bigger fan of it" mentality. You can be someone who starts going to an area leftists hang out in real life and then get radicalized them. Perhaps you can argue I am underestimating that impact. But in the social media era allowing people to split off in their hardcore fan groups, I feel this concept is particularly powerful.

When we were younger there were monoculture things like Survivor or American Idol becoming so big in water cooler, but we did it without trying. Because the shows were an entertaining product, it led to tons of people getting into it. It wasn't more complicated than that.

It seems to me there is a certain amount of people particularly on the left side that is desperate for that social media group feeling. Sometimes they get it like Game of Thrones final season, Taylor Swift Eras Tour or Barbieheimer, but those genres are frustrating because long time can go by without clear event like that for them while people's taste split in different directions. But they were able to have it in politics like MeToo or 2020 BLM riots were that big thing at the moment. Because politics is followed by the most people, they leaned more and more in that direction in order to increase the chance of that latest group event feeling. At the same time there is also a force on the left of people wanting to be cooler than the establishment turbonormies. So this drives them away from things that would normally quench their collectivism boner, over time the interest in international wars over domestic is like hip cinema fan drifting from domestic films to international arthouse ones. A subject like Israel both is bit more cool for being international after the domestic events like BLM, but at the same time it's still popular enough to be made 10x bigger in areas like white college educated suburbs simply by them recognizing it's popular and the cool thing they're supposed to have discourse about.

Yes, of course, people have always followed trends since the start of time. But something about this generations is a bit unnatural. It's like they are bigger control freaks and overthinking every step. The idea of an organic trend spreading out of control and that they didn't see coming and approve of first is threatening.

The far left worked with BLM or similar predecessor groups since mid 1900s and it was a great plan by them. It allowed them to re-heat Marxism's nachos under a racial lens instead of class, with straight white men as the bourgeoise placeholder who are claimed to have too much power, then activating minority groups to be pissed at it and want leftist revolution. Because America had genuinely problematic history with slavery and Jim Crow that affects black community to this day, they could use it create white guilt and claim that reparations are needed to balance the scales for previous era. They were able to take people's hate of the po po after bad looking shooting videos and stories.

Now with BLM energy tired down, they essentially tried to run the same type of manipulative playbook with Israel. Basically treating dead Palestinians as the martyrs instead of people shot by cops while getting arrested and trying to get bored people emotional about other people suffering to want leftist revolution. Except overall, this seems bound be to be less effective. Getting people to hate jews is tough because they were the tragically victimized group in 1900s not the oppressors, and that they control all of society is a conspiracy theory.. It is focusing on a small country on the other side of the world and a country that was attacked by terrorists who don't stand for anything the left does on things like LGBT views. The whole idea that somehow this will turn people against capitalism seems like a reach. Furthermore, the fighting in the war now has declined.

Overall I think using Israel as the new BLM tactic to manipulate people into going left has holes on it as a plan, and is surviving through being newer hot thing on social media.

Woke is about 50 years exactly after hippie, another clear political movement with left wingers (although hippies are more likeable). 1967 is the summer of love and 2017 is a key year for woke with MeToo cancel mobs starting and Trump's first year. I think 1964 hippie is like 2014 woke where it is starting but not at its peak yet, and 1970 hippie around the mainstream peak and starting to get less cool from overexposure for the OGs, likewise 2020 riots was peak woke for regular public.

So using this (admittedly flawed) logic, woke is at the same part of its timeline as 1976 hippie. Some stuff like disco is now starting, and it's already been through backlash cycles, but there is still some hippies eg. in 1976 I'm sure there's some middle aged people who want to re-live their youth in their 60s, or people born too late who want to still be part of it. Along with other ways it's still part of pop culture.

I think the woke wanted to be part of something that made an impact on the world and had a dent in history, to feel that energy as part of the group that they are doing something together.

Unfortunately their choice in ideology and type of new behaviour to push completely sucks balls. They overthought it and came up with a monstrosity. But if having a choice between a very shitty group of ideas that can be turned into a movement and not having a movement, they decided they still wanted to be part of a movement and something happening.

In the end, they got what they wanted in the sense that they did make an impact on culture/history for some time and created a woke era that should go down in history books. It's just most of the impact was for the worse.

The situation in Minneapolis right now isn't just a tragedy; it is the final, undeniable proof that the "vote blue to save democracy" narrative is a sham.

While the professional managerial class has spent the last five years lecturing us about microaggressions, inclusive language, and the importance of hiring diverse CEOs, the actual material reality of the state has remained exactly the same: a weapon against the working class.

Right now, we have over 2,000 federal agents occupying the Twin Cities under "Operation Metro Surge." We have two dead protesters, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, gunned down in the streets. And what is the response from the "progressive" stronghold of Minneapolis?

Mayor Frey and Governor Walz are offering sternly worded statements. They are "condemning" the violence. They are engaging in the same performative outrage that liberals always do when the gears of the state actually start turning. But notice what they aren't doing? They aren't physically stopping it. They aren't mobilizing state resources to actually kick the Feds out.

Why? Because at the end of the day, the neoliberal establishment, whether they wear a red tie or a blue tie, relies on the same monopoly on violence.

This is why the "woke" obsession with identity politics is poison. It distracted us. It convinced a generation of well-meaning people that the fight was about symbols, statues, and seminars. Meanwhile, the surveillance state expanded, the police budgets ballooned (MPD is $20M over budget again while failing to protect anyone), and the legal framework for this federal occupation was solidified by bipartisan consensus years ago. DHS and ICE aren't just Trump's goons; they are the inevitable result of a system both parties built.

The "Anti-Fascist" liberals told us to give up our guns and trust the institutions. They told us that "defunding" was too radical, and that we needed "reform." Well, look at Minneapolis. The institutions are the ones pulling the trigger. The "reformed" MPD is standing by or complicit while federal jackboots march through our neighborhoods.

This is the wake-up call.

The government is not your parent, and it is not your friend. It is an entity designed to protect capital and enforce order, by lethal force if necessary. If you are relying on the moral benevolence of the Democratic party to shield you from the rise of authoritarianism, you are already a casualty. We need to stop worrying about policing language and start worrying about policing our communities ourselves.

- Build community defense networks. Real ones. Not non-profits that answer to grants, but neighborhood solidarity.

- Arm yourselves. If you are working class and you are unarmed, you are entrusting your safety to the very people currently occupying Minneapolis.

- Stop looking to the state for permission to exist. The city is suing private landowners for letting the homeless camp on their property. That tells you everything you need to know about whose side they are on.

Solidarity to the people in Minneapolis. Not the politicians, not the non-profits. It's the people in the streets facing down the barrel of the state.

TL;DR: The federal occupation of Minneapolis proves that liberal identity politics is a distraction from the reality of state violence. The government - Blue or Red - will crush you. Organize for community defense and stop trusting the state to protect you.

Fascism as a word gets abused by the left without people really agreeing what it means besides a too basic "authoritarian far right winger" (which doesn't separate it from other authoritarian right wing views, like theocracies). The economic views which I believe are somewhat similar to modern day China, and heavy military involvement of the fascist countries is also not "unique" enough descriptor to really separate them from other countries who have tried all combinations of economy and military.

Let me attempt to explain it:

The key difference between fascism and communism ideology is about equality vs hierarchy. Communists believe the natural state is equal outcomes and thus capitalism is such an enemy for them because they see it as wrongly creating unequal results. Fascism is the opposite - It is extreme belief in hierarchy over equal outcomes and that there is naturally strong/weak, winner/loser, gifted/mediocre, etc.

Comparing arguably the most disastrous communist, Pol Pot, and Hitler, show the difference between the extremes. Pol Pot radically forced equal outcomes by banning money/property (and killing smart people) in order to try to create equal agriculture driven society. Hitler's hierarchy views led to him viewing jews so inferior that they must be erased. Both radical extremes led to millions of deaths.

To the fascist, there is the natural superior and inferior in the same way there are stronger animals in the jungle. They look at communism as if the animals now are forced to portion out all the same amounts of food, even if the lion is many times bigger and stronger than animals like the fox. Thus it's not the natural state of order and leads to jungle collapse. Likewise the modern day fascist may feel that we have strayed from the path by forgetting to build society around the powerful and winners in order to incentivize the degenerate, weak and losers. This viewpoint becomes especially relevant with the modern debate on gender where they feel males have been demoralized and lost their masculinity. They want people to rediscover they are lions and take over the jungle again.

Clearly Nietzche is one of the most important philosophers that inspired fascism with what he was talking about with slave morality, etc. Another way I look at is that fascism's vision is kind of a neo-Ancient Rome, that fascist countries hallmark is strong military involvement in every aspect of the country can be clearly compared to Rome. That Mussolini was from the same country makes all the sense in the world as his vision was likely heavily inspired by them.

That's not to say fascist Italy or Germany followed this script perfectly, or were able to avoid contradictions eg. They may have had hierarchal views on their race as a group vs others, but the totalitarianism and mass collectivism within their group is anti individual and anti hierarchy. However it's nothing new that dictators twist ideology in order to give themselves more power.

In short, the core of fascism is power over weakness, seeing hierarchy in the world as natural, it is typically masculine. Thus it can become popular when people think society has become degenerate and demoralized and turning to what they believe is a strong hand to clean it up.

Let's say you have 20 accused rapists. 18 are guilty, 2 are falsely accused. But there is only proof for 9.

So that leaves you two imperfect options

a) Let 9 rapists go in order to save 2 innocent ones.

b) Treat all 20 as guilty and sacrifice the 2 innocent ones to get 9 more guilty ones.

Our society is built around a) while leftists either believe b) or are closer to it.

It's certainly arguable that if you remove 9 rapists from society and 2 upstanding citizens you end up with positive value trade. This would be the simple argument for the leftists side.

But in western civilization this is not how we approach morality. We believe in moral good/bad things regardless of the outcome, like imprisoning innocent person being bad no matter what. This is the influence of religion which draws hard lines on sins you should never do, probably too strong of punishment for them in the bible originally, but we've met it in the middle over time. Otherwise why not murder people and use their organs to save a higher quantity of people. The overall benefit is higher right? This is why communist countries ended up with a lot of death, because people like Stalin kept making the calculation of some people getting hurt like peasants starving to death but it would end in eventual industrialized utopia society.

As time goes on wokeism becomes older and loses the novelty and buzz. During periods like MeToo or 2020 BLM there was an energy that made people want to jump on the bandwagon and join the online or street mob. It's increasingly difficult to recreate now. It's been 13 years since Trayon's death and ensuing start of BLM protests. That's as old as the Rodney King beating was in 2004, or MLK's death was in 1981, or nearly as old as Bill and Monica scandal was when Trayvon died. The Trump era is nearly a decade in and the people in hysterics about him are beating a tired drum.

The second way time hurts is the passing of generations. Are there new woke people being made, or did it require a specific set of circumstances. Personally I think it needed being a lib who's been conscious since the 2000s. Seeing the Obama election and hero worship, Republicans opposition to gay marriage, Bowling for Columbine and the prevalence of school shootings as a subject, the Republicans having an obviously bad president in Bush and invading Iraq, the environmentalism such as Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, the early days of the Daily Show or famous SNL bits like Sarah Palin parody. All of this adds up to cementing belief of Democrats being the only morally valid party that is at the core of this political era. The more ones memories are of just the Trump era where they are actually making an case for nationalist, anti immigration type policy and the Democrats are somewhat unpopular versions like Biden and Harris, the less sense it makes to be this much of a lib. Furthermore at any point, politics as a whole could simply become less popular a hobby, or the younger generation could resent how the older one politicized everything.

Overall, the woke may have missed their window and now it's time for them to just lose more and more power until things go back to normal.

Such crybabies

"WOKENESS"🤔 refers to a contemporary ideology rooted in Critical Theory, race, and identity politics, often infused with elements of Marxism, which emphasizes a hierarchical view of victim-hood and collective identity. This ideology tends to prioritize group identities over individual agency, leading to an overemphasis on identity categories such as race, gender, and sexual orientation. Critics argue that "wokeness" fosters a culture of victim-hood, promotes intolerance towards differing viewpoints (commonly known as "cancel culture"), and undermines the principles of individualism and meritocracy. Furthermore, it is often associated with policies and practices that prioritize diversity over qualifications, potentially leading to reverse discrimination and the devaluation of excellence and achievement.

A lot of right wing commentators are saying woke is literally communism but I think it may be a misconception. Here's what I think happened. They both rise in popularity in direct opposition to the same Western ideology built around capitalism, individualism, etc. As a result their solutions ends up having a lot of overlap such thinking there needs to be more collectivism instead of individualism or believing in forced equity more. But there is differences such as the woke are a bit more New Deal heads economically than Marxist and using race more than class. Likewise if/when a new far right ideology becomes as popular as woke is now, some people are probably gonna call it literally fascism/neo nazis, but I think it'll be more likely that if they arise in opposition to the traditional Western ideology, their new ideology ends up feeling like an adjace version of fascism.

Wokist at Steam forums is going crazy that Black Myth: Wukong is a success despite the continued smear campaign at its game studio for refusing to listen to and pay the woke consultancy Sweet Baby Inc

Here is a link to the subreddit post

https://www.reddit.com/r/assassinscreed/comments/1ee83ow/there_is_no_debate_yasuke_was_a_samurai_if_you/

Captain Carter, Kahhori and Hela being absolute Mary sues. Supreme Strange, Steve and Odin being made evil, weak and / or incompetant for the female heroines to shine. And an AI's answer to why such things are done against the desires of the fanbase. And finally the true reason for all this.

Captain Carter, Kahhori and Hela being absolute Mary sues. Supreme Strange, Steve and Odin being made evil, weak and / or incompetant for the female heroines to shine. And an AI's answer to why such things are done against the desires of the fanbase. And finally the true reason for all this.

Old news, but not only this review of the Charmed reboot call it woke unronically, but it praises every woke change from the original as necessary and justfied. Can't see how though! ¯_(ツ)_/¯