@tyr_13
What makes me think it's the intended effect and a power trip is exactly seeing you (and another fellow I won't name and shame) fantasize page after page, and in more than one thread, about how I feel threatened and whatnot. THAT is what marks it as an ego-wank. It's not just enough for some people to INVENT strawmen and whatnot so they can try to use "racism" and whatnot as a thought-terminating spell, half the time they also have to fantasize about what effect they had in their own delusional imagination. It's the same mechanism like when CT-ers imagine that the 'establishment' fears them enough to try to silence them or whatnot. It's a way for petty and otherwise useless people to imagine they're some kind of Gandalf.
In effect this is the impression some people give: Chūnibyō (中二病) is a Japanese colloquial term typically used to describe early teens who have grandiose delusions, who desperately want to stand out, and who have convinced themselves that they have hidden knowledge or secret powers. The difference is that in Japan you're kinda supposed to grow up and out of it by the time you're in high school. Yeah, in the West some people seem to never grow up and out of that. They just have to stay man-children who fantasize that they have some kind of Power Word: Fear that works every time.
Your observations are just faulty. They're also self-impeaching. Again, you're assuming the goal is to cause fear, and then using that assumption as justification for the argument that the goal is to cause fear.
The accusation of having 'grandiose delusions' comes right after you accuse me of having an ego trip spending time thinking about causing you fear with Gandalf like powers. Do you not see the conflict there? I've tried to be fairly gentle in my wording and you're imagining me sitting down getting a trill on the thought of causing you personally fear. That's delusional. It's also the exact kind of faulty reasoning I was talking about.
You're aggrandizing the concepts of 'threatened' and 'fear' as well, as if the very concept of those being human motivations is a personal attack. One can feel 'threatened' or 'fear' without feeling like they're going to be physically or mentally scarred, without them being major things. Admitting to the possibility that they can impact one's, or yours specifically, reactions is not some weakness or major flaw that's going to impact your position. Not in society, not physically, not mentally, not in interpersonal conflict, not in the argument.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't need to feel personally threatened by anything to find it stupid and/or counter-productive. I don't need any extra reason than that, "fear" included, than when I find Pixie Of Key's posts about GR stupid.
In fact, you only need to look at the way the 'woke' side throws around their own words to see that most of them don't really need to feel personally threatened at all. I don't believe that the white male saviour types feel threatened when they throw around "racism", "sexism", "transphobe", etc, willy-nilly. There may be other psychological problems at work, which I should probably not annoy the mods by going into, but I don't think fear is one of them. I don't think any of them actually fear that they'll wake up next morning as a black woman so they'd actually be threatened by whatever they're protesting against.
Is this really your limited understanding of feeling fear or feeling threatened? Direct personal, physical, threats are not the only stakes that could make one feel those things. Is there truly nothing you feel threatened of losing that doesn't inhabit you personally? I don't have to fear waking up as a black woman to feel threatened by the problems of racism. Even if one leaves aside that people like me are 'race traitors' and the like who are indeed individually threatened (literally in my case) for supporting marginalized friends and family, even if one leaves aside that those friends and family suffering harms (including not physical!) is something one can and should feel threatened over, those problems drag down social, legal, cultural, and even technological progress in general
which impacts everyone. 'You can't honestly be that worried because you're not X (black, gay, etc)' is not just an invalid ad hom, it's factually wrong.
You even lay out valid reasons to be threatened by these things later. You understand the concept but then forget it when you want to impeach the motives of the 'woke'. It isn't rational to claim that you personally and the 'woke white saviors' you decry in general shouldn't feel threatened or have fears when you then lay out rational reasons for exactly that to happen.
And to be clear, I have not once argued that fear was the only possible motivator.
Why then do you feel a need to believe that anyone else throwing, yes, an equally thought-terminating word is doing it out of fear? Why the double standard?
You're imagining a double standard that doesn't exist. I have not argued that it isn't possible. I specifically said for one of your examples that people do.
No seriously, make yourself comfortable on the sofa, relax and tell me why DO you need to fantasize about having a fear effect?
That said...
Yes but you do need to establish that it actually applies. Precisely because you're accusing someone of doing something wrong, it doesn't mean you get to use it willy-nilly each time you want to make someone shut up or just need something to complain about.
This again assumes the motivation is to control you, to cause fear, or something like it. You argue as if the people can't just be correct or wrong, but only attacking someone.
And yes, I really mean willy-nilly. Things that have been accused of being racist or sexist include stuff like MATHS. No, seriously, apparently even that is "rooted in white supremacist culture" and "used to oppress and marginalize people of colour." Apparently the very fact that it teaches people to think that there is only one right answer is somehow toxic and oppressive and whatnot. (And no, I'm not making it up:
https://www.newsweek.com/math-racist-crowd-runs-rampant-seattle-portland-opinion-1701491 )
... and "sexist" too, because it demands the same high standards from girls:
https://wbckfm.com/is-mathematics-sexist-now/ (Never mind that studies actually show that both are equally capable of functioning to the same standards:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41539-019-0057-x )
Cameras apparently "racist" too. Not just "you need better colour lookup tables", but the word used is flat out "racism." E.g.,
https://mashable.com/article/google-camera-image-equity
Or apparently physics textbooks are "sexist":
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020PhTea..58..625R/abstract
And chemistry textbooks too, because "The most common scientists featured in textbooks are white men." And generally, they don't have enough forced 'representation'. Yes, some actually think you should treat a college-level science manual like movies, when it comes to representation. See, only 3% of the scientists named in the text and index are female, so, you know, they don't give enough role models to girls and perpetuate gender bias and whatnot. E.g.,
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01037
.. and racist too, because even though more recent inventions are made by women, and thus result in gradually more women getting mentioned in those textbooks, "if you look at the intersection of race and gender, you really just see a large increase in [references to] White women over time." E.g.,
https://www.thecollegefix.com/chemi...-overrepresent-male-scientists-educators-say/
THAT is the problem. Yes, "racism" or "sexism" are bad. But so is attaching them nonsensically to anything and everything.
THAT is what gets people to complain about the whole race to the bottom to be the biggest whiner, and find some other imaginary injustice to whine about.
The injustices you cite are people being wrong and saying some mean things. More on that below.
I mean, Jesus, look at some of the words the other side is using, if you can't otherwise see that you need a good reason and evidence before using such accusations. Like, just to pick something you touched on, take the accusations of "paedophilia" and "grooming children." We can probably agree that paedophilia and grooming are objectively wrong too. But that's why one shouldn't just use them willy-nilly whenever one doesn't have an actual argument.
The same people accusing people of being pedos and groomers use 'woke' in the way you claim you object to for other terms like 'racism' and 'sexism'. The double standard is yours. Why is it acceptable to use 'woke' that way? And as I already challenged you to think about and you declined to show any thought of, those other terms have major aspects litigated to show the problems they describe. The 'problem' described by 'woke' is being aware of various forms of oppression. You might be trying to argue that 'woke' actually describes the
over extension of forms of oppression to cover things they don't apply to, but that's already a problem for using 'woke' as a pejorative itself.
At no point did I say that accusations of racism and sexism and the like don't need to have good evidence and reason, and specifically said the utility of not relitigating if the base concept is wrong or not can allow for the conversation to move on to
if it applies or not.
