How do you feel about the AWU writer's strike?

[AnonUnlimited]

Woke agenda being? I have seen that buzz word used to disparage neurodivergent, LGBT+, feminism, anti-prejudice, etc. inclusion so was wondering if that's what you meant or not.

Woke agenda is not inclusive.

It’s essentially the difference between espousing one’s values (inclusiveness) and forcing everyone else to say and believe the same as Hollywood (wokeness).

Some states have laws that force specific ratios like having 3 female board members if a company is a certain size, that’s overreach and using the law to make companies create positions simply based on sex or gender.

There is no problem having a movement, but there is a problem with forced diversity and forcing values on others when such things can’t be convinced naturally.

Woke, as it’s used, is focusing on those who are hyper litigious and wanting to force everyone to believe as they do.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

The "woke agenda" is used to write off movements like that.

No.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Woke agenda is not inclusive.

It’s essentially the difference between espousing one’s values (inclusiveness) and forcing everyone else to say and believe the same as Hollywood (wokeness).

Some states have laws that force specific ratios like having 3 female board members if a company is a certain size, that’s overreach and using the law to make companies create positions simply based on sex or gender.

There is no problem having a movement, but there is a problem with forced diversity and forcing values on others when such things can’t be convinced naturally.

If it’s something like

The issue I have with that is however nice your justification sounds in theory, in practice, I have yet to meet someone who does not overreach beyond that subset that you mentioned and instead pushes down a specific movement or the inclusion of such material in the public eye with prejudice using the label of woke agenda.

No.

Gee whiz. So eloquent. I really feel like you did a good job of defending or creating an argument that detracted from my opinion. Really. *applause*

 

[AnonUnlimited]

The issue I have with that is however nice your justification sounds in theory, in practice, I have yet to meet someone who does not overreach beyond that subset that you mentioned and instead pushes down a specific movement or the inclusion of such material in the public eye with prejudice using the label of woke agenda.

The problem is those movements themselves:

Woke: “I want to do x”
Me: “you’re free to do X”
Woke: “but you don’t like X”
Me: “yes I don’t like X”
Woke: “but I want to do X”
Me: “you’re free to do X”
Woke: “But I want you to like me doing x”
Me: “No”
Woke: “I’m going to use the law to force you to like me doing x.”

Essentially this is what it started as. Then it turned into:

Woke: “I want to do X”
Bigot: “ Fuck, just do x already.”
Woke: “but you don’t like X, but the law now says you have to like it.”
Bigot: “you know what? Fuck you, don’t do x, fuck off.”
Woke: “see you’re a bigot who is trying to oppress me, we need more laws. We need to teach your children so they like x too”

I’m not defending those who hate those movements and try to suppress them, but I feel it’s the woke who instigated it in the first place because now most of their movements get millions in donations every year.

Also, if you have a whole political party, corporations and academics supporting those movements, who is actually suppressing them?

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Gee whiz. So eloquent. I really feel like you did a good job of defending or creating an argument that detracted from my opinion. Really. *applause*

Bruh, you didn't ask to elaborate.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

The problem is those movements themselves:

Woke: “I want to do x”
Me: “you’re free to do X”
Woke: “but you don’t like X”
Me: “yes I don’t like X”
Woke: “but I want to do X”
Me: “you’re free to do X”
Woke: “But I want you to like me doing x”
Me: “No”
Woke: “I’m going to use the law to force you to like me doing x.”

Essentially this is what it started as. Then it turned into:

Woke: “I want to do X”
Bigot: “ Fuck, just do x already.”
Woke: “but you don’t like X, but the law now says you have to like it.”
Bigot: “you know what? Fuck you, don’t do x, fuck off.”
Woke: “see you’re a bigot who is trying to oppress me, we need more laws. We need to teach your children so they like x too”

I’m not defending those who hate those movements and try to suppress them, but I feel it’s the woke who instigated it in the first place because now most of their movements get millions in donations every year.

Also, if you have a whole political party, corporations and academics supporting those movements, who is actually suppressing them?

And this is exactly the issue. You are doing the exact overreaching I was mentioning. Somehow people think this is what's happening, and it really isn't. There are numerous examples of suppression. For the transgender movement, there are numerous states restricting access to healthcare, making it easier to fire them, forcing use of original deadname. And yes, they want people to view them as people too. Of course they want children to learn that they aren't demons or pedophiles/sexual predators cosplaying as the opposite gender as they are commonly portrayed. For the anti-racism movement, there is an incredibly high percentage of people with darker skin tone being arrested relative to those with pale skin tone.
Edit: you all seem to think that suppression is longer going on, but it's still a major problem, and this kind of belief is exactly the kind of thing stepping on people.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

And this is exactly the issue. You are doing the exact overreaching I was mentioning. Somehow people think this is what's happening, and it really isn't. There are numerous examples of suppression. For the transgender movement, there are numerous states restricting access to healthcare, making it easier to fire them, forcing use of original deadname. And yes, they want people to view them as people too. Of course they want children to learn that they aren't demons or pedophiles/sexual predators cosplaying as the opposite gender as they are commonly portrayed. For the anti-racism movement, there is an incredibly high percentage of people with darker skin tone being arrested relative to those with pale skin tone.

Nope, not overreaching.

I’d say the overreach in the first place was they aimed for the children and went beyond the parents.

I don’t see a point in discussing something with someone who doesn’t care about actual numbers and statistics. Also, this topic will get locked should we continue this.

If you really want to discuss you can send me a PM.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Bruh, you didn't ask to elaborate.

I don't really need to. I simply expect a level of discourse beyond what my 4-year old sister is capable of.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

I don't really need to. I simply expect a level of discourse beyond what my 4-year old is capable of.

Bruh.

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

Nope, not overreaching.

I’d say the overreach in the first place was they aimed for the children and went beyond the parents.

I don’t see a point in discussing something with someone who doesn’t care about actual numbers and statistics. Also, this topic will get locked should we continue this.

If you really want to discuss you can send me a PM.

Eh. If you don't see the point in discussion, then I am not going to PM. Doesn't make sense to if you don't have an open mind.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Eh. If you don't see the point in discussion, then I am not going to PM. Doesn't make sense to if you don't have an open mind.

Fair enough.
I’d just recommend checking out FBI crime statistics rather than reading it from articles.

Also, try reading arguments from the other side and other outlets from those you disagree with.

No one truly has an open mind anyway.

Edit; also I apologize for saying you don’t use statistics or numbers. I don’t know what data sets you looked up.

 

[Tyranomaster]

And this is exactly the issue. You are doing the exact overreaching I was mentioning. Somehow people think this is what's happening, and it really isn't. There are numerous examples of suppression. For the transgender movement, there are numerous states restricting access to healthcare, making it easier to fire them, forcing use of original deadname. And yes, they want people to view them as people too. Of course they want children to learn that they aren't demons or pedophiles/sexual predators cosplaying as the opposite gender as they are commonly portrayed. For the anti-racism movement, there is an incredibly high percentage of people with darker skin tone being arrested relative to those with pale skin tone.
Edit: you all seem to think that suppression is longer going on, but it's still a major problem, and this kind of belief is exactly the kind of thing stepping on people.

I remember a mere 20 years ago when all that LGB wanted was the right to get married (A reasonable request given the law does in fact give tax benefits for those who are married). "Overreach" or "Slippery Slope Argument" isn't a fallacy. When I was in college I wrote a report for my required elective (what a funny oxymoron) Human Sexuality course a mere ten years ago where I argued that it was only a matter of time before the argument would come to the point where sexualizing children would become a major talking point and the idea of children being able to consent would start to be questioned. I got a "B" on that assignment because it was supposedly hyperbolic. Here we are now. The entire point of my argument was that by abandonment of tradition as the preferred method of living, and shifting to "Consent based" acceptance, inevitably, consent will be questioned, because the goalpost was moved. It'll keep getting moved because it is arbitrary. At least traditional values have the benefit of having a few thousand years of not causing complete societal collapse.

The issue that you don't seem to see with the problem is the logical conclusion of the movement. The logical conclusion is basically enforced sexual acceptance of everyone, the denial of personal preference as a human right, and, inevitably, a complete collapse of society into anarchy, followed shortly by a strongman dictator. Why is this the logical conclusion? Because the movement holds so many contradictory beliefs, AND states that non-acceptance of ANY particular choices or orientation is a moral wrong. What will happen is enshrinement of poorly phrased laws, which will lead to easy exploitation, and in twenty years, complete societal collapse in places with those laws due to the majority population having grown up with these new laws without the previous understanding of their origin. Its a very simple logical slide to the end from there.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

Maybe Scribblehub will get a flood of new authors soon?

 

[TheMonotonePuppet]

I remember a mere 20 years ago when all that LGB wanted was the right to get married (A reasonable request given the law does in fact give tax benefits for those who are married). "Overreach" or "Slippery Slope Argument" isn't a fallacy. When I was in college I wrote a report for my required elective (what a funny oxymoron) Human Sexuality course a mere ten years ago where I argued that it was only a matter of time before the argument would come to the point where sexualizing children would become a major talking point and the idea of children being able to consent would start to be questioned. I got a "B" on that assignment because it was supposedly hyperbolic. Here we are now. The entire point of my argument was that by abandonment of tradition as the preferred method of living, and shifting to "Consent based" acceptance, inevitably, consent will be questioned, because the goalpost was moved. It'll keep getting moved because it is arbitrary. At least traditional values have the benefit of having a few thousand years of not causing complete societal collapse.

The issue that you don't seem to see with the problem is the logical conclusion of the movement. The logical conclusion is basically enforced sexual acceptance of everyone, the denial of personal preference as a human right, and, inevitably, a complete collapse of society into anarchy, followed shortly by a strongman dictator. Why is this the logical conclusion? Because the movement holds so many contradictory beliefs, AND states that non-acceptance of ANY particular choices or orientation is a moral wrong. What will happen is enshrinement of poorly phrased laws, which will lead to easy exploitation, and in twenty years, complete societal collapse in places with those laws due to the majority population having grown up with these new laws without the previous understanding of their origin. Its a very simple logical slide to the end from there.

I disagree (but I have packing and room organizing to do for my apartment so I cannot exactly synthesize my entire argument as your well-made argument would deserve in response) but I can definitely admire how well-thought your viewpoint is and how well-supported it is. So thumbs-up from me.

 

[melchi]

Wonders what this has to do with writers guild strike....

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Wonders what this has to do with writers guild strike....

Nothing. I just used a political term and here we are.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Nothing. I just used a political term and here we are.

Btw, I just showed you how to get onto ignore lists.

 

[LunaSoltaer]

Nothing. I just used a political term and here we are.

One could say... you awoke the controversy.

Also, having seen first and secondhand a lot of shit on the net... Yeah all I will say about politicsl movements for now since it's dying down is:

You have no business criticizing another's house if you have not yet tidied up your own.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

One could say... you awoke the controversy.

Also, having seen first and secondhand a lot of shit on the net... Yeah all I will say about politicsl movements for now since it's dying down is:

You have no business criticizing another's house if you have not yet tidied up your own.

I don’t actually know what you mean but I’ll just agree.

 

[LunaSoltaer]

I don’t actually know what you mean but I’ll just agree.

It's a shitty pun xP

Unless you mean my paragraph afterward about houses, in which case I find that a lot of movements that say they're good have something really damning that they aren't dealing with. Like it's not even a skeleton in the closet sometimes because its foundational to the movement.

"Overreach" or "Slippery Slope Argument" isn't a fallacy.

Congratulations! You have just discovered the core difference between a formal and an informal logical fallacy!

To be specific, Slippery Slope is informal, meaning the problem with it is NOT in the argument form. its that in the chain of A to B to C to ... to Y to Z, you need to make sure all of A->B through Y->Z hold.

If all the links hold then the slide really does work, which is what you seem to have observed.

For completeness sake, A->B, B, therefore A is a formal fallacy.