I was commenting on an article where people were discussing the new U.S. Army Woke ad. The same one that Senator Ted Cruz referred to when he indicated they were trying to turn our military into "pansies".
I found myself riffing off of the pronouns post I made a couple of days ago. I said something along the lines of this:
Imagine you are in a conflict zone and running around shouting orders and communicating with the other members of your force. You are in situations that split second decisions and awareness are the difference between life and death. In the mental processor that is your mind what should you be allocating those resources to in order to keep yourself and your teammates alive? Should it be valuable mental resources that are trying to remember what pronoun each squad member prefers? Is your mind navigating that increasingly convoluted mental maze when you have much more important things to do? Does that seem wise?
Most of this woke, critical race theory, and intersectionality push is wrapped up with mega doses of virtue signaling. They may think, "I didn't virtue signal". In reality you did. You just came from the negative approach. You attack me and others to lower us in estimation when compared to yourself. You may not have tooted your own horn. You simply tried to dig mental siege tunnels under the ground that we were standing on.
You may be thinking, "So I am winning an argument". Nope. If that is what it was about there might be some actual value to it. Wokeness, CRT, and intersectionality are not at all about winning an argument. They are about ridicule, character assassination, and people voluntarily returning to segregation. Overall in the term known as progress they are of negative value. HINT: That would also mean there is nothing "progressive" by the true meaning of the word despite what the proponents of such concepts choose to label themselves. They are a negative value. They are moving from a time pushing for tolerance (not just speaking about it, actually doing it) into a time of ridicule and ad hominem attacks. They are moving from a time where the end of segregation was fought for and defeated into a time that is not only bringing segregation back it is trying to create even more boxes to separate people by. They are moving from a time when meritocracy was a good thing to a time where meritocracy is viewed by them as racism, or privilege. They clearly do not understand the meaning of the word, or they are choosing to be willfully ignorant. Meritocracy cannot exist if it is focused on race or privilege. It therefore cannot be those things. It is those of you being enslaved by these sick mind viruses hiding behind the labels woke, critical race theory, and intersectionality that are pushing the racism and demanding privileges.
I like the term awake. I despise the term woke. I am glad the term woke exists though. It is far from the same thing as awake. Awake simply means paying attention and thinking for yourself.
Woke pushes a bunch of negative value nonsense.
If I look at the things the woke push as good, in the long term do they move society forward in any positive value direction? I'm starting to lean heavily towards NO. They seem to be completely about negative value, destruction, and rotting of the minds. The key is good doses of fear at regular intervals to keep people from thinking clearly. Then find some way to give those people a nice dopamine hit at the right time and you'll turn them into suicidal zombies that are not only walking the path of their own destruction, they will gleefully attack others in the process and have nice rainbow images of how great they are.
You though... those of you that can't see that their wokeness is greatness. To them you are just a selfish jerk, a racist jerk, a homophobic jerk, a misogynist jerk, etc.
The insidious nature of these mental viruses is that they spread drivel from one person to another simply by emotional appeal. They use ridicule to isolate, intimidate, and then indoctrinate new victims of this illness. Now they have another adherent running around in the cloud of emotion fighting oppression, and saving the victims of the world. All the time they could stop seeking those they were fighting if they'd simply take the time to look into a mirror and think for themselves...
I see the value in groups. As long as the membership is voluntary to come and go as one sees fit. I do not tend to think the "needs of the many, outweighing the needs of the few" is a particularly good statement in many cases. Why? It is too simple. I'm starting to see a lot of the problems and turmoil in the world rooted in people trying to simplify complex things. In doing so they often leave out a lot of important variables and information.
Are you so certain they actually know what the needs of the many are?
You can also then say but what about democracy? That fixes this problem.
No. Sorry it doesn't.
The quantity of people believing a thing does not suddenly make it correct. This has been proven many times throughout history in rather dramatic fashion. This is especially true in the field of science. Rather dramatic things have been discovered that at first only one person was pushing (ONE!) and being met with resistance, ridicule, mockery, and indication they had not authority and were not an expert. Maybe he was just a patent clerk. Then their idea completely upended what those MASSES of people thought was true. It hasn't happened only once. It has happened many times. I can think of two cases right now that fit the description I just provided. Albert Einstein, and Nikola Tesla both went through this experience.
Was the mob correct? Did the popular opinion have the correct answer?
So why do you think the mob will properly know what the NEEDS of the many are?
Also sometimes the ONE is more important than the many. It is not something easy to predict. Dwelling on absolutes in either direction is a mistake. Absolute individuality can lead to problems, likewise absolute group identity can and does lead to problems.
There are tasks and points where each of them can be the correct approach though.
There is only one constant that to me differentiates the good idea from the evil/oppressive idea...
Was it voluntary?
If you convinced them through ridicule, mockery, and emotional battery then that is not voluntary. That is simply another form of coercion.