When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

No sorry I haven't been told enough. You've only said a niece transitioned and said they got married. You have no details as to when they transitioned. Which is relevant to the conversation. There is a reason you are hiding when. You must realize that it matters when they transitioned and don't want to say.
How long ago did they transition? How long have they been transitioned into the opposite sex? Details matter.

I said, and this is the last time I will say it, you have been told all you need to know and you will be told nothing more.

 

[Bradskii]

You really should stop spreading disinformation. Because I have never said that no adult should ever be allowed to transition. I believe I've said the exact opposite. Don't be dishonest about what I've said. It's beneath you.

You are against it. You are demanding that up to a certain age it must stop. And don't give any guff about being ambivalent about adults transitioning. You don't want it happening at all. You still thinks it's wrong, even with the most mature of reasoning, at whatever age, with whatever medical advice, with however much research, whatever the outcome, however beneficial it might be from everyone's viewpoint.

 

[Paidiske]

Sure. I'm not telling anyone which epistemic route to truth to choose. They're free to choose whichever one they wish. Some people, for example, cite the Koran as their route to truth. In that text, a specific description of how a baby is formed is explained....and it's wildly different from the one I know as the truth.

There is a reality, it's not a matter of perspective, and either the Koran is correct, or I am correct, or neither of us....but we cannot both be correct. Objective reality doesn't change for one's perspective or lived experience.

That wasn't quite my point. I'm not arguing for the validity of beliefs which conflict with science. I'm arguing that science can properly only address particular types of questions, but those are not the only questions humans might wish to ponder.

I don't think it's as improbable as you may think. I sincerely doubt you project a whole lot of meaning onto a factual statement like....

1+1=2.

I bet you accept that as bare fact. It means nothing more nor less than 1 plus 1 equals 2. It wouldn't matter which way it was written or in what language....it stands on its own as fact. It stays this way regardless of culture, society, era, distance, etc. I don't see why you think it so difficult to consider any other fact the same way.

Mathematics is, perhaps, the "purest" discipline in that sense. But even then, there are times when the "fact" that 1+1=2 is not an adequate statement of meaning.

But when we move from something as abstract as basic arithmetic, our statements become much more freighted.

It's not. If it were, you wouldn't be hearing cultish mantras of "trans women are women" because they aren't.

I understand "trans women are women" to mean, "trans women belong in the social category of women without question."

What social category are you talking about? As I already said....women and men can do as they please.

It's not that simple, though. We've touched in this thread on questions where it's more complicated than that, from sports to changing rooms to prisons. The social category associated with biological sex does still matter in all sorts of concrete ways.

The social categories are effectively already gone. The only categories remaining refer to biological reality.

I don't think that's true, on either count.

When they're arguing that "women can have a penis" or "men can give birth"....those aren't arbitrary social constructs. Those are objective biological realities. I'm certain you've seen these arguments made plenty of times. I sure have.

I've seen those arguments made, but I don't understand that by that they mean that a person with a penis is reproductively female (or that a person who gives birth is reproductively male). Again, I see them as arguing for the inclusion of that person in the social category which aligns with their gender identity.

There's nothing to negotiate.

If that were true, this thread probably wouldn't exist. To what extent people should be allowed to identify in or out of a social category is very much a matter to be negotiated.

This is like asking me why the truth matters.

No. I'm pointing out that our reproductive organs don't matter for very many aspects of life.

All of this, though, is really something of a red herring. None of it changes the evidence that there is sexed development of the brain, and that that can be incongruent with other sexed aspects of our development.

 

[rjs330]

I said, and this is the last time I will say it, you have been told all you need to know and you will be told nothing more.

Oh I know I don't NEED to know. But you are the one that's making certain claims about transitioning etc. And YOU are the one that wanted to give an example, but then you are refusing to provide the details. So unfortunately your example is meaningless because we have no idea if it actually applies. I guess we just have to take your word for it. Pardon me if I don't.

 

[rjs330]

You are against it. You are demanding that up to a certain age it must stop. And don't give any guff about being ambivalent about adults transitioning. You don't want it happening at all. You still thinks it's wrong, even with the most mature of reasoning, at whatever age, with whatever medical advice, with however much research, whatever the outcome, however beneficial it might be from everyone's viewpoint.

Still spreading disinformation are we?

 

[rjs330]

None of it changes the evidence that there is sexed development of the brain, and that that can be incongruent with other sexed aspects of our development.

There is no evidence for this. Even the research you say exists doesn't say that. They can't make that kind of statement. I've even quoted the stuff for you. Not really sure why you are ignoring what the research actually says.

 

[Paidiske]

There is no evidence for this. Even the research you say exists doesn't say that. They can't make that kind of statement. I've even quoted the stuff for you. Not really sure why you are ignoring what the research actually says.

I read it for myself, and reached very different conclusions from yours about what it says, and what it means.

 

[rjs330]

I read it for myself, and reached very different conclusions from yours about what it says, and what it means.

I didn't come to any conclusions. I simply pointed out were the research admits that its inclusive and there are issues with the research. That's not me making a conclusion that's the researchers themselves coming to those findings.

If you are trying to say what it means instead of what it says that that speaks volumes as to the issues here with the entire thread.

It's the ole 2+2=5 argument again.

The claim is you can't believe your eyes. It's the ole "this is what the actual research says".

Your response? "Well it might SAY that, but that's not what they meant."

2+2=4.

Well that's what they say. But what they really meant was 2+2=5.

Then why didn't they say that from the start. I guess it doesn't matter. It's just what you say they meant is what matters. Not what they really said.

 

[Paidiske]

If you are trying to say what it means instead of what it says that that speaks volumes as to the issues here with the entire thread. ...

Your response? "Well it might SAY that, but that's not what they meant."

No, that's not my response. My response is to take seriously what it says, and then to apply that to the issues under discussion in this thread. After all, if it were meaningless for this thread, there would be no reason to refer to it.

 

[Bradskii]

Still spreading disinformation are we?

Then confirm that you have no problem with an 18 year old transitioning if it's under the best medical advice and all parties are in complete agreement.

 

[rjs330]

No, that's not my response. My response is to take seriously what it says, and then to apply that to the issues under discussion in this thread. After all, if it were meaningless for this thread, there would be no reason to refer to it.

If you took seriously what they said you wouldn't say there was evidence for a transgender brain. There isn't any I quoted your own research prove it. It's meaningless. I think you referred to it for the reasons you stated. You thought it meant something. Turns out it didn't confirm what you thought after all.

 

[rjs330]

Then confirm that you have no problem with an 18 year old transitioning if it's under the best medical advice and all parties are in complete agreement.

I have think I've already stated that. You admitted I stated that. So why do you keep claiming otherwise.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That wasn't quite my point. I'm not arguing for the validity of beliefs which conflict with science. I'm arguing that science can properly only address particular types of questions, but those are not the only questions humans might wish to ponder.

It doesn't have to be science....it can be any conflicting epistemic routes to truth.

Mathematics is, perhaps, the "purest" discipline in that sense. But even then, there are times when the "fact" that 1+1=2 is not an adequate statement of meaning.

I think you missed what I'm saying....

I'm saying those concepts are factual and carry no social or cultural meaning. You can spend every day from here until your last in some other culture or society and they will not change. No meaning is projected onto them.

But when we move from something as abstract as basic arithmetic, our statements become much more freighted.

I'm sorry....but that's you. I don't have to project any socio-cultural referent onto man or woman.

I understand "trans women are women" to mean, "trans women belong in the social category of women without question."

Well you're wrong then. The spaces we segregate for women are because of biological differences. All the women in my society now complaining of lack of safety, voyeurism and exhibitionism of sexual perverts, rape and sexual assaults.....aren't complaining some generalized violation of social norms.

Even sport is delineated for biological reasons. There's no point in a deeply mismatched or unfair contest. We don't have men boxing women for the same reason we don't have a light heavyweight fighting a featherweight. It's not sporting.

And I don't think you've actually been listening to why they demand language change.

It's not that simple, though. We've touched in this thread on questions where it's more complicated than that, from sports to changing rooms to prisons. The social category associated with biological sex does still matter in all sorts of concrete ways.

See above. If the argument was social and not biological then you'd be arguing that a man should be able to enter those "women only" spaces. That's the social argument. Instead, you're arguing that a man can enter those spaces because a man can be a woman. That's a biological argument....and you are wrong.

I don't think that's true, on either count.

See above. You aren't arguing that men should be allowed to violate women's spaces because these are mere social convention....you're arguing men can be women, opposed to biological reality.

I've seen those arguments made, but I don't understand that by that they mean that a person with a penis is reproductively female (or that a person who gives birth is reproductively male). Again, I see them as arguing for the inclusion of that person in the social category which aligns with their gender identity.

That's because you've confused gender and biological sex. Why? Because they're literally the same concept. These people used to call themselves transsexuals. That wasn't advancing their goals so it became transgender. Why? Because gender is the same concept without the baggage of being grounded in objective reality. Gender doesn't carry the history of biological science. They aren't trying to change their gender though....they're trying to change their sex.

It's a fantasy world where women can have penises and men can give birth.

Women don't have penises @Paidiske ....that's not a social-cultural distinction. It's a biological fact. Men have penises. Objective reality. 1+1=2.

I'd swear you were just arguing that trans people aren't arguing against biological reality just a few posts ago....

....now you're sitting there telling me that they're arguing for the inclusion of some kind of "socially constructed woman penis."


I'd also like to point out that despite insisting that trans activists have no hold on your views....you're arguing that women can have penises lol.

Come back to reality with the rest of us. You don't have to pretend. It's ok if they call you names. It's ok if they don't like you. They've been riding the coattails of the gay movement but they don't have a Matthew Shepard. They have guys who take hormones and beat up women in cage matches. They have guys who insist lesbians are bigots if they don't accept dating a woman with a penis. These aren't good people. The good ones never needed your affirmation, nor demanded we restructure all of society around them.

I'm not asking you to vote conservative. I'm not saying you should be mean or abusive to trans people. I'm saying we shouldn't be doing this to children. They probably need a reentry into the DSM under a body dysphoria or combination of issues.

If that were true, this thread probably wouldn't exist. To what extent people should be allowed to identify in or out of a social category is very much a matter to be negotiated.

Man and woman are biological categories. They aren't social. If you take a woman out of any culture or society and a man out of any culture or society.....they all have something in common. Only the women get pregnant. Only the men have penises.

It's really not that difficult.

No. I'm pointing out that our reproductive organs don't matter for very many aspects of life.

I agree. Guess what though? They are directly related to who is a man or woman. This is basic biology. Sexual dimorphism in mammals.

All of this, though, is really something of a red herring. None of it changes the evidence that there is sexed development of the brain, and that that can be incongruent with other sexed aspects of our development.

This is your issue....this is why people are increasingly sick of this woke cult. You're telling me that biological sex doesn't matter one moment.....and the very next, you're telling me our brains are biologically sexed. Odd they aren't gendered huh?

 

[stevevw]

The guy is complaining about people like you. People who use the term at a drop of a hat to denigrate others.

Wait a minute those who are objecting to Woke did not make this up. Its been appropriated and overused by those who claim to be Woke which is predominately whites on the Left side of politics. Woke became a sign or virtue and a commodity and pushed onto society. Like with hashtag 'Stay Woke' or “Woke bespoke”, even to the point Woke Corporations as evdienced by campaigns like Gilette and Budlight and Hollywood and Presidents virtue signalling.

Newton said "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". But I think this applies to social issues as well. What we are seeing is primarily a reaction from those who disagree with the pushing of Woke ideas. Most are not over reacting just because they highlight this truth. But I agree as I said in the OP that its become polarised and to the extreme. But that is because of the extreme ideas on the Left/progressive side. This relates to the point that as a whole secular society has lost its religion and is searching for a replacement if you notice that fundemnetally this is all about morality.

He's complaining about exactly what you wrote above. For what it's worth, it's a dumb term to describe someone who is aware of various problems in society. And he's pointing out that PEOPLE LIKE YOU use it as a bumper sticker, politically charged, catch all whinge about anything and everything you don't like. He's saying that the way you you use the term is meaningless. That it's lazy. That it's used instead of an argument. That it has become the argument.

Wow your upset about this. Sorry if thats the case. I never use the word and it only comes up when the discussion is related to Woke. I certainly don't advertise it like a bumper sticker as I don't like the word. I agree its a dumb term, but its also a misued term now. Thats what happens when a word or idea is taken over by people with some agenda. One side pushes it to the point that it becomes a bumper sticker and then the other side reacts. But I am not sure the reaction is totally unjustified. It wouled not have been an issue if it wasn't first pushed and misappropriated.

You have to understand why Woke became that way it is in the first place and we can trace its origins in through the ideas coming out of academia back to the 90s at least. Remember before Woke there was Identity politics, cancel culture and PC, Woke is just a morphing of all that. But before all that there were other ideas that fueled the fire for Woke. Like CRT, Structuralist Theory, Critical Social Justice and Queer Theory and all stemming from Postmodernism.

The point is usually society naturally evolves pretty slowly and changes will be accepted by the majority in democratic societies. The Civil rights movement was a slow and long march to what we have today. But activists didn't push any ideology onto society along with that like "all people and structures are inherently racist" (CRT). Or all white people are priveledged and heteronormative like its some innate evil or malady. They just highlighted the injustice and society came around to seeing the truth. Most people seen the sense and were awakened you could say. Probably closer to the true meaning of Woke.

But what is happening today is more like Totalitarianism. A forced engineering of society in viewing our own history and culture as evil and needing to tear it down to reconstruct into a new equal and fair Utopia. I call it Utopia because that has been humans hope of a society where we can reduce if not eliminate what we inevitably always end up with which is chaos. As we are fallible and fallen people.

So people on the Right and more conservative and often Christian are really reacting to this forced idea of how we should structure society based on the way the Left has implemented changes in policy, law and ethical codes. But also and probably more so people react to the narrative being driven, the change in language meaning and policing of words, the division of segregating society into identity groups based on oppressor and victim mentality, the resentment at our own history and the move from Western ideas like Enlightenment and science to personal and group narratives that now determine reality.

So the idea of 'Woke' being Woke or not that has crept into our society and the fact it matters to most regardless of which side of the fence you are on one thing we can agree on is that whatever Woke represents today it matters, it represents something fundemental about belief, morality and reality. That is why I guess both sides are so passionate about it and this relates back to how we are all natural born believers in Divine concepts and that we come into the world with a sense of morality.

And he's telling you that you're the problem.

Well I think there is the problem. You are missrepresenting my position. I don't use the word and modern day meaning of Woke as my arguement and I do base what I say on a researched arguement.

As I have been saying we can track how the word and idea of Woke today happened. As I mentioned it traces back to ideas based on Critical and Structural Theory, Critical Race and Critical Social Justice and Queer Theory seen through the lens of Postmodernist thinking. Marxism or rather Cultural Marxism seems to be the political ideology that best suits these Theories as both are about deconstructing existing powers and elites and replacing this with the disempowered individuals and groups to gain equality and fairness.

But all this has evidence behind it, we can join the dots so to speak through data and the evolution of thinking and many have done so I think a proper understanding of both sides is needed. Its pretty detailed and too big to cover in a thread. But there's bits of evidence that together build a case.

For example we could track the word Woke and related terms to its increased use and broadly by who, which side, which age, which gender. What meanings are given. From this we can derive links to how society has changed, what the ideas and thinking represent, what theories are behind them ect.

In fact many commentators on both sides say Woke or the idea behind Woke today can be represented as an era in siocietal thinking and ideas which is a pretty significant event. And we have had some pretty significant events to support this such as social media, 9/11 and Covid which has changed the way we see things.

As this is one of my areas of research I have done a fair bit of research. So no I don't just use the word Woke as an arguement no more than I would just use God as an arguement.

 

[Bradskii]

I have think I've already stated that. You admitted I stated that. So why do you keep claiming otherwise.

You THINK you have? I don't think you have at all. But as you think so we'll assume so.

So we can state, based on your agreement, that transitioning from one sex to another is perfectly acceptable for an 18 year if they consider that their gender doesn't align with their sex.

 

[Bradskii]

So people on the Right and more conservative and often Christian are really reacting to this forced idea of how we should structure society based on the way the Left has implemented changes in policy, law and ethical codes.

You say those three as if they are separate identities. They all form one homogenous group that uses 'woke', as I say, as a derogatory catch-all for anything they don't like. Drag anything and everything into the 'Woke' sack and it's easy to hand out the cudgels, often with a religious quote or two branded into them, to anyone who feels disenfranchised and let them go for it. Hey, look! It's the Woke Sack! Beat it!

How many times have you seen any given thread on any given matter have incorporated into it a plethora of other complaints that have nothing to do with the op. It's a whinge fest. Crie de cours every other post. And obviously here all are Christians. But that's the case wherever there are screams of 'Woke!' It's invariably religously based. And all have a tendency to a fundamentalism religion. Fire and brimstone. Thou shalt NOT!

The problem is that the religious right is a shrinking minority. And the smaller they become the louder they get. The more extreme the calls. Reasonable arguments become thin on the ground. Often non existent.

And WOKE! is the call to arms. That is what the guy was trying to tell you in the article. You completely missed his point.

 

[stevevw]

Good grief. The second link has two random people commenting on 'wokeism', one saying that 'we spend too much time on minorities'. Gee, thanks for that incisive and thought provoking comment.

Just rechecking any missed posts and came across the one youreferred me to 741 which I now replied. But wanted to reply to this part of the related post.

I suspect you were being sarcastic about how shocking it is for someone to mention "spending too much time on minorities". I think this is the issue I am talking about in how the discussion on these issues has become polarizing. The idea that in saying something like "spending too much time on minorities" is not in itself wrong. Its not inherently racist, homophobic or any other biased thinking behind the words. That is what Woke is in that language, words, narratives represent thinking and reality. Theres a detachment from the truth of the words to the Truth in reality. They don't alwats match.

That is what most people are concerneed about and why they are so willing to stand up even if it means those words and narratives get them in trouble. You can't say Jack **** nowadays without people attributing their 'thinking' and beliefs to others. But that tells us that its a fundemental difference in beliefs aned assumptions about people and their nature and society as a whole.

 

[Paidiske]

It doesn't have to be science....it can be any conflicting epistemic routes to truth.

The point being that just because something is outside a scientific discipline, doesn't mean it's automatically untrue.

I'm saying those concepts are factual and carry no social or cultural meaning. You can spend every day from here until your last in some other culture or society and they will not change. No meaning is projected onto them.

I know that's what you're saying, but I don't agree with you. While something like simple arithmetic might carry relatively little freight, even that is not without it.

Well you're wrong then. The spaces we segregate for women are because of biological differences.

Some are. Some aren't. Women's social networks, dancing groups, associations, girl guides, support groups and the like (just to pick a handful of things that exist near me) don't exist for biological reasons. They exist for social reasons.

The Country Women's Association (for example) doesn't exist because of biological differences!

And I don't think you've actually been listening to why they demand language change.

I'm not so sure. Take this piece, for example. Granted I read it fairly quickly, but if I understood it properly, this author is not arguing that a trans person becomes a person of the opposite sex, biologically; but that the meaning of the terms defining the categories "man" and "woman" shift to allow people to transition between them.

Which would seem to support my understanding that the argument is about admittance to the social category.

you're arguing men can be women, opposed to biological reality.

No, I'm not.

That's because you've confused gender and biological sex. Why? Because they're literally the same concept.

No, they're not the same concept, and no, I haven't confused them.

I'd also like to point out that despite insisting that trans activists have no hold on your views....you're arguing that women can have penises lol.

No. I'm arguing that trans activists are arguing for a shift in social categories, not a denial of biology.

It's ok if they call you names. It's ok if they don't like you.

Lol. I've been called names and disliked for all sorts of things since I arrived here as an immigrant kid with a weird accent and foreign culinary habits. I have no problem being the outsider; I'm so used to it I wouldn't know what to do if I weren't.

I'm not saying you should be mean or abusive to trans people. I'm saying we shouldn't be doing this to children.

I'm sorry, but refusing medical treatment on ideological grounds looks like a form of abuse to me. Neglect at the very least.

Man and woman are biological categories. They aren't social.

Actually, they're both biological and social. I think a big part of this discussion is about how much the social and the biological can be disentangled.

This is your issue....this is why people are increasingly sick of this woke cult. You're telling me that biological sex doesn't matter one moment.....and the very next, you're telling me our brains are biologically sexed.

Yep. I'm telling you that biological sex doesn't matter for most things. Like education, or employment, or social involvement, or leadership, or virtue and character. That doesn't mean that biological sex doesn't exist, even at a cellular level or in the brain.

I never use the word and it only comes up when the discussion is related to Woke.

As far as I can see, you were the first to mention it in this thread.... (post #101, for the record).

Remember before Woke there was Identity politics, cancel culture and PC, Woke is just a morphing of all that. But before all that there were other ideas that fueled the fire for Woke. Like CRT, Structuralist Theory, Critical Social Justice and Queer Theory and all stemming from Postmodernism.

That's a really complex grab-bag of random strands you've thrown together, there. I think if you want to paint them collectively as some kind of social horror, you ought to engage in a more careful and robust critique than just throwing them all into the lazy category "woke" and expecting everyone to respond to the call to arms.

Because as it stands now, I read the list and think, some of those had good aspects, some are messy, some are probably less helpful, but you're not giving me much with which to engage constructively. Which really makes me think there's not much point to the discussion, if it's just going to devolve to that kind of sloppy rhetoric.

Marxism or rather Cultural Marxism seems to be the political ideology that best suits these Theories as both are about deconstructing existing powers and elites and replacing this with the disempowered individuals and groups to gain equality and fairness.

Hardly ideas foreign to Christianity, I might point out. Luke 1:52-53 comes to mind:
"He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty."

 

[Mountainmike]

Actually it's a statement of belief. "I have faith there is no God" would be a statement of faith.




What sort of DNA test are you referring to here and what would it prove?

I’m not sure it belongs on this thread.

But search “ Eucharistic miracle sokolka , buenos airies, tixtla or legnica for example, ( lanciano is older) and see the science , pathology and forensic testing. Better still read a cardiologists explanation in Serafinis book. ( or others like tesoriero) Red patches appeared on Eucharistic wafers , in independent locations/ continents , examined by independent pathology teams .
They were determined as human heart tissue, living at the point of sampling , despite long periods before test and .so intimately intermingled with bread at the edge they could never be faked.
Both nuclear and single cell MtDNA have been examined , and the correspondence to sacred cloths and even a bleeding statue Considered.
The consequences are profound , as potential 1/ evidence of created tissue 2/ that potentially disproves Darwin by his own criterion 3/ could potentially show they are the same victim.

But some universites refused to do tests when told the origin , eg stuttgart, because of a priori beliefs ( which is the point I made here.) other universities that did tests tried to supress results when they knew them. . Eg Bialystock . Sad. AcadeMia loses objectivity around potentially religious phenomena.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A point of consideration...

What feels like years ago now I started a thread about the inherent problem of activist movements. Whether we're talking about the black civil rights movement, the feminist equal rights/suffrage movement, or the gay civil rights/non-discrimination movement.....you had legitimate causes constructed around the idea of universal rights and equality under the law. They all had legitimate issues and identifiable solutions. End the separate but equal doctrine of segregation. Give women the right to vote and the same opportunities as men. Consider gay people as being born with no more control over their sexual orientation than heterosexual people....and extend them the same right to marry and seek employment without discrimination.

All causes I consider legitimate because I genuinely despise bigotry rooted in the circumstances of one's birth. Things which are beyond the control of everyone. I agree that equality under the law while representing an ideal which can never be perfectly realized, was a worthy organizing principle of justice.

The problem with these is they rob the activist of a real skill set of value once the goal is achieved. Once achieved....the movement should dissolve. Instead, they found homes teaching non-subjects to students who lacked meaning and direction or ability.....in our colleges and universities. They're just opinions forming poorly considered ideologies and students pursue degrees in them cuz it's easy to repeat a set of opinions. The true believers sound insane....and prior to social media, these people would be laughed at and ignored.

That's with good reason. The idea that all cops or white people are inherently racist against black people is stupid....the idea that all sex is rape and women would never lie about a sexual assaults or rape is stupid. The idea that women have penises and men can get pregnant and feelings determine who is man or woman is pretty darn stupid. These are entirely appropriate reactions to the increasing extremist views these activist groups held over increasingly illegitimate problems that frequently had no solutions at all. Mockery, avoidance, disregard....all rational responses.

Then social media did for these people something very similar to what it did for atheists a decade before. They formed online communities....they formed online groups. Unfortunately, the atheists had only one goal....legitimize their views through debate and discourse. These activists couldn't do the same....so they sought to legitimize their views by silencing opposition and accusations of bigotry and moral authority from claimed victiimhood. These online activist groups are authoritarian, oppose civil rights, and based on political support garnered from a left wing that was in disarray after Trump won office. Unarmed black men killed by police was an extremely rare occurrence that's far outweighed by the good police did in black communities. A miniscule problem without any solution....the hyperfocus on it in the media has damaged the police the black community as a result. Women being raped or sexually assaulted in the workplace never justified the assumption of guilt over decades old accusations and has severely damaged men's willingness to work with women in any close professional capacity. The trans activists faced no real discrimination (Bruce Jenner transitioned to the applause of the nation) and tales of bathroom violence and child suicide that doesn't exist has damaged the public education system and put real women at risk.

These groups are the core of the woke cult that has filled the gap of a political left that's chased off intellectuals, is largely racist, sexist, bigoted, and unsurprisingly.....unable to form any meaningful goals or legitimate paths to achieving them.

They don't debate because they're ideas are fundamentally flawed and contrary to the ideas of liberalism and universalism. They are identity politics.....based on improving their own selfish desires by means of an undeserved power grab.

Together, they form the strongest argument against democracy itself.