Wokeness the Death of Science in the Western World

[Larniavc]

and therefore God warned Adam but did not fence it off

Then it’s God’s fault.

 

[Larniavc]

I think you miss the point that they use education to manipulate public opinion.

I know that. What I see is that formally the public was manipulated by Christians. As a kid I remember hearing about unmarried couples ‘living in sin’.

Today no one cares about that. That’s not because of a manipulated public opinion it’s because it’s no longer important because there are fewer Christians.

It’s not the anti Christian rhetoric in society it’s the lack of Christians to make their views an important part of the milieu.

 

[Diamond72]

I know that. What I see is that formally the public was manipulated by Christians. As a kid I remember hearing about unmarried couples ‘living in sin’.

We have lots of people living in sin and no one that can tell us what marriage even is. The average single-parent household is 35 % but with blacks, it is up to 70%. A lot of problems are caused by broken families and people dealing with abandonment. Asians are a low 16% rate.

KIDS COUNT Data Center from the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Explore the KIDS COUNT Data Center for free statistical data about economics, education and health sorted by race, sex and age in our national data center.

datacenter.kidscount.org

 

[Larniavc]

We have lots of people living in sin and no one that can tell us what marriage even is. The average single-parent household is 35 % but with blacks, it is up to 70%. A lot of problems are caused by broken families and people dealing with abandonment. Asians are a low 16% rate.

KIDS COUNT Data Center from the Annie E. Casey Foundation

Explore the KIDS COUNT Data Center for free statistical data about economics, education and health sorted by race, sex and age in our national data center.

datacenter.kidscount.org

Odd that you would bring race into it but you do you.

 

[childeye 2]

Then it’s God’s fault.

Let me say something up front. Any reasoning based on a falsehood ends in a contradiction.

This is what you posted me as saying:
childeye 2 said:
and therefore God warned Adam but did not fence it off

Here is what I actually said on the record:
Childeye said: To me it indicates that everything Holy/Eternal is built on a trustworthy image of God, and therefore God warned Adam but did not fence it off.

The record shows you used a snippet of what I said and actually took out the qualifier for my statement shown in bold above. The question is why? You need to ask yourself, "Did I do this consciously or subconsciously?" Because either way you need to be enlightened through the realization that it's a contradiction in reasoning to state that it's God's fault He is Holy.

 

[Larniavc]

To me it indicates that everything Holy/Eternal is built on a trustworthy image of God, and therefore God warned Adam but did not fence it off.

The fact that he did not fence it off means it is God’s fault. I did not alter what you said.

 

[childeye 2]

The fact that he did not fence it off means it is God’s fault. I did not alter what you said.

Well there you have it, your reasoning ends in a contradiction subconsciously and not consciously. You do not even realize that not factoring in the qualifier that contains the meaning, alters what I mean to say. And this is why you end up reiterating your meaning without even addressing the substance of my argument of why you're wrong to think that way.

You have a corrupt image of god at the foundation of your reasoning just as I did before I understood the simplicity of Christ. It's not our fault we don't see everything and are therefore open to suggestion just as Eve was. Without being enlightened, you/we could not contemplate the mind of the Holy God; that had God fenced it off, He would not present as Holy, clearly demonstrating a distrust in Adam, who is made in God's own image. That's why I indicated, the knowing that God warned Adam but did not fence it off actually shows He is Holy and trustworthy because He trusts Adam.

You need to consider that there are circumstances where things seem unfair, but it's no one's fault. Or to rephrase, to try and fix what is not broken is to break it.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

 

[Larniavc]

That's why I indicated, the knowing that God warned Adam but did not fence it off actually shows He is Holy.

You’re wrong of course. But I see you will not approach this issue with an open mind.

Time to shake the dust from my sandals, I think.

 

[childeye 2]

You’re wrong of course. But I see you will not approach this issue with an open mind.

Time to shake the dust from my sandals, I think.

Oh, come on now. It's not a closed mind that addressed your substantive points and regarded them as substantive. Your solution doesn't even address the problem that led to suffering, a corrupt image of god introduced by Satan.

Honestly, I know where you're coming from. Do you think I've never asked those exact same questions?.., Duh. The mistake you're making is that you need to ask how does God get rid of vanity in the creature (the spirit of Satan) without letting the events play out that show exactly where vanity leads? (see the prodigal son).

 

[Ana the Ist]

What are your credentials in biology?

Is he wrong?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wokeness and identity politics has infiltrated universities. Some say this will have a disastrous effect by reducing the level of education and qualifications in STEM fields and social sciences.

How Identity Politics Is Harming the Sciences

Identity politics has engulfed the humanities and social sciences on American campuses; now it is taking over the hard sciences. Read the whole story here.

www.city-journal.org

Yeah I'm not thrilled at the idea of lowering standards for doctors or really... anyone..... so we can cater to racist dreams of demographic proportionality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In other words, the term woke has been hijacked for propaganda, and lies always usurp from the Truth. Why participate in hypocrisy and be a part of the problem? Do you not know accepting a lie and passing it on will only lead to being deceived and deceiving others?

Here's the Truth, The Woke term originally means enlightened about the suffering of those in Black America. It's a positive connotation alluding to being aware of inequality and injustice. If it's being applied by the LGBTQ community then it still implies being aware of inequality and injustice. If anyone changes that meaning to a negative connotation, then they are for inequality and injustice.

Every lie of the powers of darkness intends to undermine this essential Truth: Love God with all your heart mind and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.

This is the base political dichotomy, Democracy/Autocracy. It is used to reason upon degrees of the delegation of power.

Any left/right or east/west configuration in the context of politics that doesn't exist as a subset of that fundamental base reasoning is a false dichotomy.

This is a North/south dichotomy, positive/negative. The negative represents the absence of the positive and it is used to reason upon absolutes. True/false, Light/Darkness, up/down are all dichotomies that reason in absolutes.

Love God with all you heart mind and soul is the positive in a North/south Dichotomy. Love others as yourself is an east/west or left/right dichotomy typically meaning a give/take between two opposing subjective views. For example, Buyer/Seller is a valid left/right dichotomy with an objective center.

Do you have a citation for woke or something?

I always took it to refer to the awakening of the Marxist consciousness in the labor masses....which would probably predate any other usage.

 

[childeye 2]

Do you have a citation for woke or something?

Just the English dictionary identified as a slang term.

I always took it to refer to the awakening of the Marxist consciousness in the labor masses....which would probably predate any other usage.

Hmmm, I never heard of it used in the context of marxism, but it makes sense. Of course, the word itself implies not asleep, but it's the subject matter and one's point of view that qualifies the term as either a positive or negative. Otherwise, it's a neutral term.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just the English dictionary identified as a slang term.

Ok...so I'm going to look, but guess atm no one has bothered to figure out the etymology of woke as a slang term.

Hmmm, I never heard of it used in the context of marxism, but it makes sense. Of course, the word itself implies not asleep, but it's the subject matter and one's point of view that qualifies the term as either a positive or negative. Otherwise, it's a neutral term.

Well awakening the "socialist/collective/Marxist" conscious in mankind was always seen as this sort of necessary predicate for communism that would evolve out of a constant, endless, revolution against the status quo. Eventually, mankind is supposed to have these facets that allow him to ignore his own survival, disregard the care or concern of those closest to him, disregard the possibility of bettering his situation, and seek only the benefit of a sort of abstract collective.

In reality though....this is an upper middle class loser mentality. They don't love the poor....they hate the rich they're just outside of becoming. They have it better than everyone else who has to work hard for a living....but not enough to live in luxury that they see right above them. Even today....Marxist are upper middle class liberals who resent the very rich....or are very rich themselves by selling Marxism to total idiots.

 

[dzheremi]

It might be interesting to note here, since Marxism has entered the conversation, that in Soviet Russia language conventions were changed around how to 'officially' refer to men and women such that the terms like muzhchina and zhenshchina ('man' and 'woman') were often replaced by grazhdanin ('citizen'; it has its own grammatically feminine form, too, I just can't remember at the moment if grazhdanka or grazhdanina was used) in certain contexts, I suppose as a way to emphasize equality between people under the Soviet system. During all this time, the regular/non-political terms were still known and widely used, but I just find it interesting that many people in the West think of this sort of thing as something that is very current and limited to Western-specific LGBT-adjacent gender issues. My source on this was my old Russian professor, Eugenia Khassnia (who now teaches at Stanford, so she's no crank), who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s and immigrated to the USA circa 1990.

It's kind of funny (not 'ha ha' funny) that what is thought of by some in the West as the most progressive thing to do was for the ordinary people in the Soviet Union just another patently ridiculous directive from on high that many people accepted only because they had to in order to stay in the state's good graces. Hmm.

 

[childeye 2]

Ok...so I'm going to look, but guess atm no one has bothered to figure out the etymology of woke as a slang term

It's slang and therefore informal. So, it doesn't much matter to me so long as I understand the sentiment of the people currently using it.

Well awakening the "socialist/collective/Marxist" conscious in mankind was always seen as this sort of necessary predicate for communism that would evolve out of a constant, endless, revolution against the status quo. Eventually, mankind is supposed to have these facets that allow him to ignore his own survival, disregard the care or concern of those closest to him, disregard the possibility of bettering his situation, and seek only the benefit of a sort of abstract collective.

In reality though....this is an upper middle class loser mentality. They don't love the poor....they hate the rich they're just outside of becoming. They have it better than everyone else who has to work hard for a living....but not enough to live in luxury that they see right above them. Even today....Marxist are upper middle class liberals who resent the very rich....or are very rich themselves by selling Marxism to total idiots.

Don't love the poor? Hate the rich? That's an accusation either way between two relative terms. We know compassion favors the poor, and I believe certain concepts of socialism and capitalism can work together in a society to form a sustainable, dependable, productive economy and an improved lifestyle for all, by putting the most needy first. This is why Adam Smith, often referred to as the father of capitalism, favored a progressive system of taxation.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It might be interesting to note here, since Marxism has entered the conversation, that in Soviet Russia language conventions were changed around how to 'officially' refer to men and women such that the terms like muzhchina and zhenshchina ('man' and 'woman') were often replaced by grazhdanin ('citizen'; it has its own grammatically feminine form, too, I just can't remember at the moment if grazhdanka or grazhdanina was used) in certain contexts, I suppose as a way to emphasize equality between people under the Soviet system. During all this time, the regular/non-political terms were still known and widely used, but I just find it interesting that many people in the West think of this sort of thing as something that is very current and limited to Western-specific LGBT-adjacent gender issues. My source on this was my old Russian professor, Eugenia Khassnia (who now teaches at Stanford, so she's no crank), who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s and immigrated to the USA circa 1990.

It's kind of funny (not 'ha ha' funny) that what is thought of by some in the West as the most progressive thing to do was for the ordinary people in the Soviet Union just another patently ridiculous directive from on high that many people accepted only because they had to in order to stay in the state's good graces. Hmm.

It might be interesting to note here, since Marxism has entered the conversation, that in Soviet Russia language conventions were changed around how to 'officially' refer to men and women such that the terms like muzhchina and zhenshchina ('man' and 'woman') were often replaced by grazhdanin ('citizen'; it has its own grammatically feminine form, too, I just can't remember at the moment if grazhdanka or grazhdanina was used) in certain contexts, I suppose as a way to emphasize equality between people under the Soviet system. During all this time, the regular/non-political terms were still known and widely used, but I just find it interesting that many people in the West think of this sort of thing as something that is very current and limited to Western-specific LGBT-adjacent gender issues. My source on this was my old Russian professor, Eugenia Khassnia (who now teaches at Stanford, so she's no crank), who grew up in the USSR in the 1960s and immigrated to the USA circa 1990.

It's kind of funny (not 'ha ha' funny) that what is thought of by some in the West as the most progressive thing to do was for the ordinary people in the Soviet Union just another patently ridiculous directive from on high that many people accepted only because they had to in order to stay in the state's good graces. Hmm.

Putin has made it clear that they have wholesale rejected the concept of anything more than 2 genders. Whatever reason he has for changing words...it's not wokeness. What is clear is that no one doubts whether or not effective manipulation of people is possible by changing words.

This isn't normal, and I think we have reached a point where the mere possibility of being honest with each other disappears or is in danger....should we allow the private sector to infringe upon public speech.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's slang and therefore informal. So, it doesn't much matter to me so long as I understand the sentiment of the people currently using it.

Which can change naturally.

Don't love the poor? Hate the rich? That's an accusation either way between two relative terms.

You can look at Marx....who came from a rather solidly middle class background. As did basically every other successful Marxist revolutionary.

Even so called Marxists today....especially the successful ones....whether they be Hasanabi, Vaush, Chapo Trap House, or Cullors all share things in common. Only Cullors can I say was from a more working class background (tmk) and like all the others....got rich selling Marxism to fools.

We know compassion favors the poor,

Ok.

and I believe certain concepts of socialism and capitalism can work together in a society to form a sustainable, dependable, productive economy and an improved lifestyle for all, by putting the most needy first.

I don't know what you mean by sustainable.

This is why Adam Smith, often referred to as the father of capitalism, favored a progressive system of taxation.

That's not at all why he favored a progressive tax system. He said nothing about sustainable or dependable....he said exactly the opposite.

 

[childeye 2]

Which can change naturally.

Or change deliberately for the purpose of propaganda.

You can look at Marx....who came from a rather solidly middle class background. As did basically every other successful Marxist revolutionary.

Even so called Marxists today....especially the successful ones....whether they be Hasanabi, Vaush, Chapo Trap House, or Cullors all share things in common. Only Cullors can I say was from a more working class background (tmk) and like all the others....got rich selling Marxism to fools.

I'm not familiar with these people, so I can't comment. But I don't see being middle class as relevant.

I don't know what you mean by sustainable.

A means of production that doesn't ruin the environment, and runs on renewable resources, and adequately supports the needs of a society.

That's not at all why he favored a progressive tax system. He said nothing about sustainable or dependable....he said exactly the opposite.

No, I was stating my belief that socialism and capitalism can both work together to form a dependable and sustainable economic system. I also said that it should serve to eliminate poverty (as much as it is possible/feasible). You should keep in mind that my sentiments serve to reflect Christ and not greed. Therefore, I mentioned Adam Smith's comments on a progressive tax system as an example of a tax structure based on income. And I'm not saying that Adam Smith was trying to eliminate poverty, just that he didn't want undue burden placed upon those with no wealth, which is taking the poor into consideration.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.…

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or change deliberately for the purpose of propaganda.

You can usually tell when that happens because it's preceded by a memo or otherwise transmitted message to stop using one definition and begin using another.

Spontaneous changes happen without any instructions.

I'm not familiar with these people, so I can't comment. But I don't see working class as a prerequisite for compassion.

It's certainly not....but we are talking about people who have, for all effective purposes, joined a religious movement that believes in their own underserved righteousness and in the evil of those who have been more successful than them. While the religion strives constantly to perfect a blueprint for revolution....it never once tries anything remotely similar for the creation of the supposedly equitable society their revolution serves. In fact, there quite simply is no blueprint for this equitable society....it's assumed to be a trifle, something easily achieved, and the only thing standing in it's way is this evil upper class that's only living for greed.

Sweep them away....either violently or not....and the betterment of all can begin.

Machiavelli once wrote (and I'm paraphrasing here) that's there's nothing more perilous, less likely to succeed, than a new way of doing things....and if one is resolved to undertake such an effort, they should proceed with great caution and care.

If we can just for a moment assume Machiavelli is correct...then it would be prudent for Marxists to understand everything they can about the current way of doing things....and planning out the new way....well before any revolution is ever planned. Indeed, if one was concerned about the poor...this is obviously what they should do....for the poor will be hurt first by sweeping away the old order. This never actually happens though. Marxists think first of overthrowing the old order....and if any genuine concern for the poor exists, it's an afterthought at best. I've met Marxists smart about a lot of things...but I've never seen one that actually understood markets, basic economics, or the actual processes that create our economies. Capitalism is just the name used to broadly describe these things. They see it only as a mysterious enemy....so they know nothing about it. Only once they've destroyed it completely is their folly revealed....and in order to maintain power, an absurd farce has to play out where innocents are blamed for failures, and only ruthless tyrants can maintain control through violence.

A means of production that doesn't ruin the environment, and runs on renewable resources, and adequately supports the needs of a society.

Ok....so something like the Amish or more primitive? That would require the slaughter of around 7 billion people.

To be sustainable, we would have to eliminate all products that cannot be grown or replaced at a pace at least equivalent to that which they can be replenished. Essentially, a pre-industrial society.

And it's worth pointing out any such society would almost immediately become subjugated by a modern industrial society.

No, I was stating my belief that socialism and capitalism can both work together to form a dependable and sustainable economic system. I also said that it should serve to eliminate poverty (as much as it is possible/feasible). You should keep in mind that my sentiments serve to reflect Christ and not greed.

Capitalism has nothing to do with greed.

Therefore, I mentioned Adam Smith's comments on a progressive tax system as an example of a tax structure based on income. And I'm not saying that Adam Smith was trying to eliminate poverty, just that he didn't want undue burden placed upon those with no wealth, which is taking the poor into consideration.

He suggested a progressive tax system to avoid monopolies or other situations of market collusion which corrupt the process of economics by ending competition within a market.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state.…

Yeah it's kind of funny how similar that sounds to "from each according to his ability" and if compared together it seems apparent to me that Marx not only convinced people he understood economics by ripping off Smith....but his best criticisms of Capitalism are also ripped off from Smith. It seems almost certain that Marx was fully aware he was nothing more than a huckster. His idea of "class consciousness" is a full blown denial of what Smith called "rational self interest". Smith understood that regardless of who we are....we are concerned about ourselves and those immediately in our care, ones we love, first.....and all others second. This was true of the wealthiest king in his day as it was the poorest pauper....and it's a basic unchanging feature of humanity. Collective will? Class consciousness? These are fantasies that have never existed and unless you can propose some widespread genetic manipulation changing mankind into something else entirely.....they never will exist. These may not be beautiful or aspirational or dogmatic views of humanity....but the fact that capitalist nations have better standards of living than anywhere, even for the poor, and Marxist revolution in attempt to implement socialism has failed every time it has been tried.

When I say failed....I mean it failed immediately. It fails in real time. It fails as it's implemented. All freedom has to be stripped from society to create equity....and once you realize that you will never better yourself or those you love beyond the same state as those who contribute nothing at all....you have no reason to strive or work for anything. Gunpoint labor follows shortly after. If it doesn't....the level of degradation and inhumanity that ensues makes fascists look almost kind by comparison.