And this, we must realize, is the very core of wokeism - a firm, narcissistic belief that they are on the "right side of history," that they in fact are the most moral people, the most enlightened, to have ever walked the earth. That alone, in their smug minds, justifies all they do, all their hypocrisies. They represent pinnacle of empa…
And this, we must realize, is the very core of wokeism - a firm, narcissistic belief that they are on the "right side of history," that they in fact are the most moral people, the most enlightened, to have ever walked the earth. That alone, in their smug minds, justifies all they do, all their hypocrisies. They represent pinnacle of empathy and virtue, you see; so that gives them latitude to impose whatever they like on those lacking in empathy and virtue.
Those who yammer on the most about "privilege" have, in fact, privileged themselves.
I think that there's a classic projection mechanism in play. One time I read an interesting essay on *Harry Potter* about how the Gryffindors and the Slytherins are actually the same people, except that the Gryffindors are the ego-ideal of how they see themselves and the Slytherins are the objective reality of who they are. It's sort of like that.
I'm not sure if I agree on the premise that they actually are the same people, but there certainly is the theme throughout the whole series where Harry struggles with the knowledge that he could have been "great" in Slytherin. It's a scary thought to Harry in large part because he knows how terrible some Slytherins have been and he wonders if these terrible things are part of his heart as well. Later, it's explained to Harry in some detail that although he could have been "great" in Slytherin, it's his disposition and choices that made him a true Gryffindor. The series comes back around to that at the very end of the series when young Albus is nervous about where he will be sorted, and Harry assures him that even in Slytherin, he's still capable of working toward the good.
Oh, sorry—I should have clarified that the essay was a sort of psychoanalytic spoof. (It also made jokes about how Harry Potter grows up to be a cop, to give you an idea.) They are definitely not the same people in the books nor in any way intended to be so.
One of my neighbors has a daughter in her 20s who popped onto social media a week ago to lecture all of us about not supporting "genocide" in Gaza and how evil we were if we were not 100% pro-Palestinian in all matters. A day later, she went back to posting photos...from her boyfriend's polo matches! You can't make this stuff up.
True, but I have more than 30 more years of accrued social capital, none of her crippling student loan debt, a resume that lends me some credibility when I write to, say, a college alumni office, and a better understanding of how our social and political systems actually work. Voting isn't the only way to get things done.
In a perfect world, you would have the right to vote but the young woman wouldn't. However, the world is far from perfect and absolute nitwits are allowed to vote.
Oh yeah. One of the things that cracks me up the most is when one of these cretins tells me his "right side of history" nonsense, with the clear belief he/she is on said side. And they try to laugh it off or fly into a rage when reminded history is only the amalgam of known facts of events past and has no "side". It is just history.
Just recently, George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame, who has come out wokest of woke, posted on his Facebook account a quote from Isaac Asimov about needing to get rid of national borders, etc.
Hey. George. Bet you live in a house whose doors have locks. In a well-heeled neighborhood surrounded by a wall. With entrances protected by armed security.
Dude. Don't even get me started on the "In this house we believe..." signs in gated communities. "No human is illegal" - but God forbid anyone try to build affordable housing next door.
My brother and sister-in-law live in a neighborhood in DC full of rich white people that went nuts around 2016 when the a plan to distribute small, temporary family shelters evenly across the city included one in their vicinity, literally right next to the police station. Suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Whitey McYardsign were worried about overcrowding of the neighborhood schools and increased crime, and they opined that black and Hispanic women and children in need would feel "more comfortable" somewhere else, closer to the sorts of people and places they were used to.
It's really such a silly dance. They know why they're using money and privilege to live in a safe, fancy area. We know why. They know we know why. But in the face of their actual, practical choices, we're expected to defer to their idealistic yard signs in our assessment of their charity. It's all rather exhausting.
And let us not forget, "No Human Is Ilegal" has been thoroughly discredited, as various Republican governors, most notably Greg Abbot and Ron DeSantis, made sure they had to practice what they preach.
Martha's Vineyard could not move quickly enough to deep six the foreigners.
As long as they thought they could make Texas eat the costs, they nattered on. But when things change...
The moves by Abbott and DeSantis were political genius. Oh, you're a "sanctuary city," are you? Well here ya go. And within weeks they are howling.
But this is a good guide to how the "woke" mind works. "We" have an obligation to accept immigrants. But of course "we" means "you."
But, shouldn't the "sanctuary cities" be ASKING Texas and California to be sending the poor tired, huddled masses? Shouldn't each planeload be greeted with the red carpet, and the likes of Eric Adams saying - "You haven't sent enough, send more; our empathy is bottomless?" Because that's the image they attempt to project to the rest of us - so long as "we" means "you.'
I'd like the Wall Street stock market set up cots on the floor. The Wall Street Journal should house a couple hundred of Robert Bartley's beloved immigrants. "There shall be open borders," said the Journal's lunatic dead editor-in-chief.
DeSantis and Abbott have shown they understand not just what gets people riled up, but how to take control of the terms of the debate. If they did like Trump and just ranted about bad people crossing the border, then all the attention would have been on them. Instead they actually did something, said very little, and put all the attention on the behavior of others. It's a level of savvy political maneuvering I haven't seen from Republicans for...well, for my entire life, come to think of it.
He lives in an adobe house without walls and presumably with locks. I know, I've seen it. (I get your metaphor, I'm just bragging about knowing George.) There was once no greater GOT fangirl that me.
Well....George posted "There are no nations, there is only humanity. And if we don't come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity - Isaac Amisov".
Wouldn't you agree that can be taken a lot of ways other than "no borders". I take it as "Stop fighting. It is OK to have nations but it is not OK to fight to bring advantage to your nation because others are just as human as you - there are no nations of the heart even though there are physical nations". I mean..."there will be no nations" has to be seen as something Amisov wants to avoid in that quote.
It is hippie nonsense, Linda. And I refuse to squint and do the hokie pokie to try to see it any other way. He live a life of wealth, privilege and safety and has taken on the views of someone decadent and sheltered, like many in his strata. No more complicated or nuanced than that.
I'm a GoT fan. I like his writing. I'm also a fan of other artists who suffer from the same malady, talented, but completely disconnected cretins. Just because you are a talented artist doesn't mean you have a damn thing to offer as far as real world insight goes.
To check it's value, you actually compare it to the real world.
I do compare it to the real world. It works for me. People are like his characters. Some of the most real characters ever, both male and female. To my knowledge, he writes the best female characters of any writer. (The only exception being Orual in Lewis' "Till We Have Faces" - he and Martin are equal here as males writing female characters, imho.)
What views? I've only ever heard GRRM say things like favoring Obama. I don't think the Asimov quote says "no borders". I perceive him as an old hippie, but as I said, I'm not comfortable to say what I think his faults are since he is both someone I know and someone who is not here to defend himself.
OK, you have caught me out in that it has been a while since I've been an ardent GRRM fan, or active in that community. (The fan board long ago just became too full of leftist trolls.) But starting in 1997, and up to about 2014 or so....whew....
I don't know about his antics at the Hugo, but I googled it and got the opposite of woke, to wit: <<<"horrified by Martin’s hosting, in which he repeatedly mispronounced names, waxed rhapsodic about exalted figures from SFF past who are now rightfully called out for their racism and sexism, made “gender essentialist” jokes" >>>
(I think that was written by a woke person who thinks GRRM is not woke - evidence, perhaps, that GRRM is not "woker than woke")
Actually, you have to see the article - or as much as you can stand of it. GRRM sounds far from woke: (The French Revolution eats its own?)
Yes, I read that article. IT came up first in the search engine, naturally, since the wokies are upset for him defending older writers who are now out of fashion for them.
Go deeper. Look for him espousing current day political views and excoriating writers identified as conservative being accepted for Hugo consideration.
Erm..I don't recall such in many hours of hearing him talk, but I admitted its been a while since I heard him talk. Still, people don't change that much. Its quite the fashion to reject Orson Scott Card because hd is Mormon, though I never heard GRRM do so. What conservative does GRRM think is disqualified for a Hugo due to conservative views?
Whatever GRRM said it had to be mild as milk compared to that ASOIAF fan board. Years of bashing I took there, but my, in some ways it was a bit of fun for our little band of conservatives. (I didn't actually stop posting until they forbade talk about the US presidential election in 2012...I tapered off after that and it's probably been seven years since I said anything.)
PS: I agree with you 95% of the time, Tee, but did have to disagree here.
More about George - I could talk about his faults, but he is not here and I would feel a bit disloyal to say what I think they are.
For virtues - the chief is the character of Dany, in other words, George warned us about Regime Change before we ever went to Iraq (Dany and the slavers). He served in 'Nam. He knew all along. He did specifically talk about his beliefs, it was not just a coindidence that regime change did not work out for Dany. George is a very good student of history.
His second main virtue - he teaches "everyone is the hero of their own story". He has a few psychopath characters of course but other than that, he wants to show how almost everyone **thinks** they are doing right. Yeah, maybe it is self-justification but they think it is right, or at least understandable in the circumstances, when they do it, they don't sit there going "I think I will do something really bad". Hence the incredible Lannisters and Starks, with the former thinking they are good, or at least doing right, not just cardboard villains, and the later usually much more truly good, though paradoxically, unfit to rule at times in an evil world. (yeah, I know...but George sees evil even when people think it they are doing good.)
For me this "they think they are doing right" helps me when I have to see people cheering Hamas. But yes, I want Hamas to no longer exist.
My bad....I misremembered about his service. His discussion of the horrors of Vietnam must be all I actually recalled.
I do not claim he is a modern sage. The two things I stated (regime change usually does not work, and, people usually think, or tell themselves, they are doing right) seem like two pieces of wisdom that not everyone is party to.
Ok, goodness I'll watch but there is no comparison. Tolkien is light. Light in the darkness. Sublime. Martin is human widom and human mistakes, but again, I won't specify anything I think is a mistake from someone I know who is not here.
Evidence for anything in the post I replied to. cyniciam, nihilism, eyebrow...anything :)
I did go deeper in thought. Here is what I believe:
I am 100 percent convinced through reading of many books and stories that GRRM really understands people. I am also near-100 percent convinced that it is impossible to understand people as well as he does and be far-left. Could be left, but not far-left.
It just does not go together. There is a cluelessness about the far-left. GRRM lacks that cluelessness.
And this, we must realize, is the very core of wokeism - a firm, narcissistic belief that they are on the "right side of history," that they in fact are the most moral people, the most enlightened, to have ever walked the earth. That alone, in their smug minds, justifies all they do, all their hypocrisies. They represent pinnacle of empathy and virtue, you see; so that gives them latitude to impose whatever they like on those lacking in empathy and virtue.
Those who yammer on the most about "privilege" have, in fact, privileged themselves.
I think that there's a classic projection mechanism in play. One time I read an interesting essay on *Harry Potter* about how the Gryffindors and the Slytherins are actually the same people, except that the Gryffindors are the ego-ideal of how they see themselves and the Slytherins are the objective reality of who they are. It's sort of like that.
I'm not sure if I agree on the premise that they actually are the same people, but there certainly is the theme throughout the whole series where Harry struggles with the knowledge that he could have been "great" in Slytherin. It's a scary thought to Harry in large part because he knows how terrible some Slytherins have been and he wonders if these terrible things are part of his heart as well. Later, it's explained to Harry in some detail that although he could have been "great" in Slytherin, it's his disposition and choices that made him a true Gryffindor. The series comes back around to that at the very end of the series when young Albus is nervous about where he will be sorted, and Harry assures him that even in Slytherin, he's still capable of working toward the good.
Oh, sorry—I should have clarified that the essay was a sort of psychoanalytic spoof. (It also made jokes about how Harry Potter grows up to be a cop, to give you an idea.) They are definitely not the same people in the books nor in any way intended to be so.
Kgasmart, you'll get a wry kick out of this.
One of my neighbors has a daughter in her 20s who popped onto social media a week ago to lecture all of us about not supporting "genocide" in Gaza and how evil we were if we were not 100% pro-Palestinian in all matters. A day later, she went back to posting photos...from her boyfriend's polo matches! You can't make this stuff up.
But it's WOKE polo...
These people tend to have about zero self-awareness.
Sad to say, her vote counts as much as yours.
True, but I have more than 30 more years of accrued social capital, none of her crippling student loan debt, a resume that lends me some credibility when I write to, say, a college alumni office, and a better understanding of how our social and political systems actually work. Voting isn't the only way to get things done.
In a perfect world, you would have the right to vote but the young woman wouldn't. However, the world is far from perfect and absolute nitwits are allowed to vote.
Oh yeah. One of the things that cracks me up the most is when one of these cretins tells me his "right side of history" nonsense, with the clear belief he/she is on said side. And they try to laugh it off or fly into a rage when reminded history is only the amalgam of known facts of events past and has no "side". It is just history.
Just recently, George RR Martin of Game of Thrones fame, who has come out wokest of woke, posted on his Facebook account a quote from Isaac Asimov about needing to get rid of national borders, etc.
Hey. George. Bet you live in a house whose doors have locks. In a well-heeled neighborhood surrounded by a wall. With entrances protected by armed security.
Shut up and write Winds of Winter.
Dude. Don't even get me started on the "In this house we believe..." signs in gated communities. "No human is illegal" - but God forbid anyone try to build affordable housing next door.
"LOVE IS LOVE." "NIMBY."
I always wanted a sign that said “In this house, we believe you probably don’t care about what we believe.”
My brother and sister-in-law live in a neighborhood in DC full of rich white people that went nuts around 2016 when the a plan to distribute small, temporary family shelters evenly across the city included one in their vicinity, literally right next to the police station. Suddenly Mr. and Mrs. Whitey McYardsign were worried about overcrowding of the neighborhood schools and increased crime, and they opined that black and Hispanic women and children in need would feel "more comfortable" somewhere else, closer to the sorts of people and places they were used to.
It's really such a silly dance. They know why they're using money and privilege to live in a safe, fancy area. We know why. They know we know why. But in the face of their actual, practical choices, we're expected to defer to their idealistic yard signs in our assessment of their charity. It's all rather exhausting.
And let us not forget, "No Human Is Ilegal" has been thoroughly discredited, as various Republican governors, most notably Greg Abbot and Ron DeSantis, made sure they had to practice what they preach.
Martha's Vineyard could not move quickly enough to deep six the foreigners.
As long as they thought they could make Texas eat the costs, they nattered on. But when things change...
The moves by Abbott and DeSantis were political genius. Oh, you're a "sanctuary city," are you? Well here ya go. And within weeks they are howling.
But this is a good guide to how the "woke" mind works. "We" have an obligation to accept immigrants. But of course "we" means "you."
But, shouldn't the "sanctuary cities" be ASKING Texas and California to be sending the poor tired, huddled masses? Shouldn't each planeload be greeted with the red carpet, and the likes of Eric Adams saying - "You haven't sent enough, send more; our empathy is bottomless?" Because that's the image they attempt to project to the rest of us - so long as "we" means "you.'
Exactly.
I'd like the Wall Street stock market set up cots on the floor. The Wall Street Journal should house a couple hundred of Robert Bartley's beloved immigrants. "There shall be open borders," said the Journal's lunatic dead editor-in-chief.
DeSantis and Abbott have shown they understand not just what gets people riled up, but how to take control of the terms of the debate. If they did like Trump and just ranted about bad people crossing the border, then all the attention would have been on them. Instead they actually did something, said very little, and put all the attention on the behavior of others. It's a level of savvy political maneuvering I haven't seen from Republicans for...well, for my entire life, come to think of it.
Why shouldn't homeless shelters be built in Kalorama, Cleveland Park, Rock Creek, Georgetown, Capitol Hill and Woodley Park?
I think they should be. Spreads the responsibility evenly across the city. But rich Ward 3 white folks were up in arms.
"In this house we don't give a sh*t about what you believe in your house. Just mow your f*cking lawn."
He lives in an adobe house without walls and presumably with locks. I know, I've seen it. (I get your metaphor, I'm just bragging about knowing George.) There was once no greater GOT fangirl that me.
Well....George posted "There are no nations, there is only humanity. And if we don't come to understand that right soon, there will be no nations, because there will be no humanity - Isaac Amisov".
Wouldn't you agree that can be taken a lot of ways other than "no borders". I take it as "Stop fighting. It is OK to have nations but it is not OK to fight to bring advantage to your nation because others are just as human as you - there are no nations of the heart even though there are physical nations". I mean..."there will be no nations" has to be seen as something Amisov wants to avoid in that quote.
(And yes, I know George is a Democrat.)
It is hippie nonsense, Linda. And I refuse to squint and do the hokie pokie to try to see it any other way. He live a life of wealth, privilege and safety and has taken on the views of someone decadent and sheltered, like many in his strata. No more complicated or nuanced than that.
I'm a GoT fan. I like his writing. I'm also a fan of other artists who suffer from the same malady, talented, but completely disconnected cretins. Just because you are a talented artist doesn't mean you have a damn thing to offer as far as real world insight goes.
To check it's value, you actually compare it to the real world.
I do compare it to the real world. It works for me. People are like his characters. Some of the most real characters ever, both male and female. To my knowledge, he writes the best female characters of any writer. (The only exception being Orual in Lewis' "Till We Have Faces" - he and Martin are equal here as males writing female characters, imho.)
What views? I've only ever heard GRRM say things like favoring Obama. I don't think the Asimov quote says "no borders". I perceive him as an old hippie, but as I said, I'm not comfortable to say what I think his faults are since he is both someone I know and someone who is not here to defend himself.
Yet, you leaped in here.
Plenty of quotes of his are available, espousing various woke talking points. Most notably his antics with the Hugos.
As I said, he is a good writer. That does not make anything he has to say about the real world worth a damn.
We may be into a semantic thing with "woke" here.
OK, you have caught me out in that it has been a while since I've been an ardent GRRM fan, or active in that community. (The fan board long ago just became too full of leftist trolls.) But starting in 1997, and up to about 2014 or so....whew....
I don't know about his antics at the Hugo, but I googled it and got the opposite of woke, to wit: <<<"horrified by Martin’s hosting, in which he repeatedly mispronounced names, waxed rhapsodic about exalted figures from SFF past who are now rightfully called out for their racism and sexism, made “gender essentialist” jokes" >>>
(I think that was written by a woke person who thinks GRRM is not woke - evidence, perhaps, that GRRM is not "woker than woke")
Actually, you have to see the article - or as much as you can stand of it. GRRM sounds far from woke: (The French Revolution eats its own?)
https://www.themarysue.com/grrm-hugo-awards-debacle/
Yes, I read that article. IT came up first in the search engine, naturally, since the wokies are upset for him defending older writers who are now out of fashion for them.
Go deeper. Look for him espousing current day political views and excoriating writers identified as conservative being accepted for Hugo consideration.
Erm..I don't recall such in many hours of hearing him talk, but I admitted its been a while since I heard him talk. Still, people don't change that much. Its quite the fashion to reject Orson Scott Card because hd is Mormon, though I never heard GRRM do so. What conservative does GRRM think is disqualified for a Hugo due to conservative views?
Whatever GRRM said it had to be mild as milk compared to that ASOIAF fan board. Years of bashing I took there, but my, in some ways it was a bit of fun for our little band of conservatives. (I didn't actually stop posting until they forbade talk about the US presidential election in 2012...I tapered off after that and it's probably been seven years since I said anything.)
PS: I agree with you 95% of the time, Tee, but did have to disagree here.
More about George - I could talk about his faults, but he is not here and I would feel a bit disloyal to say what I think they are.
For virtues - the chief is the character of Dany, in other words, George warned us about Regime Change before we ever went to Iraq (Dany and the slavers). He served in 'Nam. He knew all along. He did specifically talk about his beliefs, it was not just a coindidence that regime change did not work out for Dany. George is a very good student of history.
His second main virtue - he teaches "everyone is the hero of their own story". He has a few psychopath characters of course but other than that, he wants to show how almost everyone **thinks** they are doing right. Yeah, maybe it is self-justification but they think it is right, or at least understandable in the circumstances, when they do it, they don't sit there going "I think I will do something really bad". Hence the incredible Lannisters and Starks, with the former thinking they are good, or at least doing right, not just cardboard villains, and the later usually much more truly good, though paradoxically, unfit to rule at times in an evil world. (yeah, I know...but George sees evil even when people think it they are doing good.)
For me this "they think they are doing right" helps me when I have to see people cheering Hamas. But yes, I want Hamas to no longer exist.
George RR Martin did not serve in Vietnam. He was not even ever in the service. He managed to get "alternative" community service. https://www.bing.com/search?q=george+rr+martin+did+not+serve+in+the+military&cvid=d007b74703db40ccad21447ed6d48ac1&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDgyNTlqMGo0qAIAsAIA&FORM=ANAB01&PC=EDGEDSE
He is a good writer. But he is not a wise man. He is no modern sage.
My bad....I misremembered about his service. His discussion of the horrors of Vietnam must be all I actually recalled.
I do not claim he is a modern sage. The two things I stated (regime change usually does not work, and, people usually think, or tell themselves, they are doing right) seem like two pieces of wisdom that not everyone is party to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAp_luluo0 GRRM vs JRRT
Ok, goodness I'll watch but there is no comparison. Tolkien is light. Light in the darkness. Sublime. Martin is human widom and human mistakes, but again, I won't specify anything I think is a mistake from someone I know who is not here.
"Human wisdom." Embracing cynicism, bordering on nihilism, with one eyebrow archly raised, is not necessarily wisdom.
Evidence?
Evidence of what, that cynicism=/=wisdom? What evidence would you like?
And if that is the game now, I would in turn like to see your evidence that cynicism IS wisdom.
Evidence for anything in the post I replied to. cyniciam, nihilism, eyebrow...anything :)
I did go deeper in thought. Here is what I believe:
I am 100 percent convinced through reading of many books and stories that GRRM really understands people. I am also near-100 percent convinced that it is impossible to understand people as well as he does and be far-left. Could be left, but not far-left.
It just does not go together. There is a cluelessness about the far-left. GRRM lacks that cluelessness.
ROAR!!!! Oh...this thing was soooo great! Thank you, thank you, thank you
Best line ever:
"C S Lewis and I were just discussin how you and Jon Snow both know nothin"
I think my neighbors hear in Budapest had to wonder about the screams (of laughter) coming from my apartment.
Worst part was of course that rap-Tokien defends himself so poorly and inaccurately (basically my sales are better).
Oh..and bad character names in Tolkien???...what is rap-GRRM thinking???
I mean "Proudfoot" vs "Daenerys"'? "Aragorn" vs. "Jon Snow". etc. I know who wins.
edit was to omit what I said about "Larped". I found out it was LARPed on a second viewing.
Thought you would like it. :)