this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
11 points (82.4% liked)

Actual Discussion

219 readers
8 users here now

Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.

Welcome to Actual Discussion!

DO:

DO NOT:

For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: !casualconversation@lemm.ee

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. You’re encouraged to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are appreciated. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

This weekly thread will focus on the word "Woke" and its meaning, use, and misuse.

Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):

  • What does the word mean to you?
  • Is it applied correctly or incorrectly?
  • Is it even applicable any longer?
  • Do you feel that Conservative media misapplies it, and is "everything I don't like is woke" an appropriate sentiment or simply uncharitable?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I don't know if I agree with that for either the vegans or woke folk.

Let me try to explain - if you are verbally harassed by religious folk of a religion that you don't believe in who have an issue with something you don't see as a problem (say you mixed fibres in a sweater like a real heathen), who is at fault? You for upsetting them, or them for having an issue that you do not?

What if they just keep bothering you and saying how morally reprehensible you are every chance they get? If you're like most people (including people who aren't vegan or claim to be non-woke), you'd say "Don't put your moral judgments on me." I feel that very much applies in all of those situations.

It's the same reason most non-religious people don't like people protesting abortion clinics. A personal belief and some indignation does not mean the world should change to suit someone's sensibilities.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes. Which I agree with and feeds into what I said.

If someone is passing (or is perceived to be passing) a moral judgement because of what they feel is right, and someone else doesn't feel they deserve that scorn, there's no doubt that those judged react negatively. This is true no matter the sides involved.

The examples I gave don't disregard this in any way. Are you able to articulate why they might?

Also, speaking as a mod, we don't downvote people we disagree with here, only people who don't add to the discussion or who go on the attack.

[–] John_McMurray@lemmy.ca -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A personal belief and some indignation is what got abortion legal.

[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yes but one example does not (or should not) a rule make. There's good statistical analysis and plenty of reason to back up that particular ruling so it's not simply a belief, but good science on outcomes. So once again using your example, we have science and logic versus belief that the science is immoral.

In other cases like the facetious example I gave in my previous post, if it is valid to make a rule from nothing but belief, then it is just as valid to repeal that rule because of nothing but belief.

I am absolutely pro-choice by the way, but simply pointing out the flaw in the logic of the other poster.