ETA: This doesn't mean OP is a bad person. It's not easy for any of us to see our ingrained prejudices. I certainly have mine.

I disagree with what you have said. Men are also criticised for their looks.

In fact my main man Nik Airball when someone was criticising him, a little before he became the now popular poker icon that he is, was told by someone that his face was brutal. Men's looks/appearance when criticised is also sometimes done by calling them geeky or nerdy looking, weedy, or a common one which is referring to a man as a virgin if he doesn't look masculine or confident.

Because he called the lady ugly, which as you rightly pointed out was irrelevant to whether she was guilty or not, still doesn't make it a misogynistic comment, it just means that he was piling in, by saying that she was ugly as well, the same way in which the person who was criticising Nik Airball for being a big mouth disrespectful player at the table (not my opinion by the way), was piling in by saying that his face was brutal.

Because women are generally more sensitive about criticisms of their looks, which I agree is probably true, still doesn't make the OP a misogynist because he called one woman ugly. All it means is that she would be probably more upset by it than a man being called weedy looking, although in actual fact we don't even know that for sure, perhaps men being criticised for their looks are just as upset or offended by it.

What you are doing is exactly what I previously described, you are making an unfounded assumption, with no evidence to back it up, that when a man calls a woman ugly that there is a natural definite link to misogyny. There isn't.

The fact that women's looks are commented on far more frequently than men's looks are, also doesn't prove a link to misogyny, it only demonstrates that it is a more popular thing to comment on. And if we are looking for an explanation why, it is probably for two reasons. Firstly that a woman's looks (at least initially) tend to be of greater significance to the opposite sex than vice versa, and secondly, because there is a far wider range of women's looks than there are of men's looks, e.g. a bigger range of body types and shapes, hair colours, style of make up, clothes, skin complexions, hairstyles etc.

Your take on things was just not around and would have been disagreed with by ~90% of people as recently as about 2004.

You are part of a fairly modern trend whereby a lot of people are automatically looking for or automatically assuming that there is a dimension of prejudice, when there simply isn't.

I don't know why you start this with "so", as if this thread has proved some larger societal point. A mod choosing to include "misogynistic" as a possible issue with a post in no way, shape or form provides any insight as to whether "the word misogynist is being bandied around too much in this woke era". On top of everything else already said, no one was even called a misogynist.

While we're making general commentary on society as a whole that doesn't pertain to this thread, I'd suggest that overly labelling things as woke as a means to dismiss them isn't exactly the peak of intelligent thinking.

What are you talking about? The mod classed the OP's comment as misogynistic, which is the OP's whole point that it was incorrect to do so.

I am not dismissing misogyny as a problem within society, I am saying that things that are not misogyny are too often being labelled as it
and that this is as a result of an overly woke outlook by a lot of people nowadays.

So you take issue with the term misogyny. Will you admit that this is certainly sexism?

Also, I'd be curious as to how you define "woke" since your contention is that its prevalence is a big societal problem. Because to me it just seems to equate to "acknowledging that everyone's experience is not the same as my experience and that this is especially a concern when it affects people who have been oppressed, negated, or silenced by the majority."

I gather you didn't read past the first post:

Hopefully that makes my point clearer.

Nor did I suggest you were. I was making a general observation about society and the dismissive use of the word "woke" as a counterpoint to your observations about "this woke era".

I don't think it was sexism either, it was just someone making a nasty comment about one woman's looks.

The definition of woke is: aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice.

And the above is fine. I have been talking about when people are overly woke, which is when people are jumping to incorrect or unprovable conclusions, which does happen much more nowadays than it did pre ~2005. Without wanting to get into the UK Brexit debate, a referendum which I didn't vote in because I saw both positives and negatives for both leave and remain, people who were on the remain side were labelling people who wanted to leave, as racists.

The countries of the EEC are ethnically white, so it was not racism. And I doubt, and in fact I know, that the remainers were not thinking about Polish people being of the Slavic race, so of a different ethnicity to Anglo-Saxons, they were just bandying around the word "racist".

It may have been nationalism, which is a different thing, but it wasn't racism. So this was an example of some overly woke people making an incorrect connection.

may not be a bad person. i stand by my statement of being a pedant though. waaaaaaay too many words, and big ones when there doesn't need to be. this isn't law and order svu.

On the "Is Nik Airball the next poker superstar?" thread in NVG, where his level of playing skill is being discussed, some posters are calling him fat and commenting on him being overweight.

Does that make those posters anti-men, or perhaps they are being anti-American, or anti-American of South Asian ancestry (Indian ancestry), or maybe they are being racist because he is a person of colour? No, of course they are not, they are just piling in, they don't like him so they are being insulting about his weight/appearance.

Interestingly, in the same thread, where I have been defending his play / supporting his skill level, someone told me I was only doing it because I am virtue signalling because he is a person of colour. I was not virtue signalling at all, I don't care what his colour or ethnicity is and hadn't even given it any thought, I was just commenting on his poker play.

So that person is also seeing that there is this overly woke thing going on, to even think that I was virtue signalling.

I think we need a neutral mitigator! Let's ChatGPT decide!









Didn't the new ownership wanted to involve AI into modding anyway? I think we're good to go! Bobo does the broad strokes an we all can retire!

I would destroy chat GPT in a courtroom debate as it doesn't yet have properly formed AI and its algorithm as I understand it, is pooling/amalgamating the most commonly
published articles or takes on things, so all it will do is reflect the majority opinion content that is on the internet, which is woke/over woke, (regardless of whether that
opinion is wrong or right), because the people with editorial control of what is published online favour woke content, as do most social media platforms.
Add to this the fact that the demographic of the largest group of users of the internet is very woke leaning, and Chat GPT's answers (output) will be heavily slanted that way too.

after sleeping last night, i awoke. does that count? i am woke. i woke. woke. this has become a weird word for me now. woke. woke. semantic satiation is the term for that btw. sorry if i'm being pedantic.

Well, I'm glad we can agree that people are falsely accused of virtue signaling/wokeness.

Or he believes he's seeing it. Interesting that you'd consider a guy who has falsely accused you of virtue signaling, to be a good judge of there being too much virtue signaling.

Anyway, it sounds like you're looking for this thread for more discussion of your "wokeness" concerns:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-quot-1819632/

Or this one for NVG moderation concerns:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...hread-1285169/

A+.

People who are overly woke will never admit that they are or never see reason, even when presented with evidence proving that they have over reacted or have mischaracterised a person or something that a person has said or written, because they are so completely convinced that they are right and that if they see a meaning in something, that that meaning must surely exist, period.

The shame of it is that their intentions are good, but they are going overboard to the point where everyone in their minds (apart from themselves of course) is a suspect of prejudice, racism or misogyny.

People in general, employees of companies, journalists, public figures, celebrities, comedians, entertainers, politicians, public servants, artists, poets, etc are now so incredibly scared or concerned that they might offend someone who is woke, or more specifically the woke collective that has hijacked what is "right and wrong" to say, or to even think, that it has damaged free thought and free speech. What we are left with is unelected and in effect unchallengable, large group of unelected and not nominated by anyone other than themselves, people with not great critical thinking skills, dictating to and policing free speech to everybody. And there is no effective way of challenging them because they are the majority where it counts, online and in the media.

Those among them who are not overly woke cannot speak out because to speak out would endanger their own jobs and livelihoods and would often result in them also being falsely accused of being prejudiced, racist or misogynist, not because they are, but because they have challenged the group who are falsely accusing others of being so.

A person of colour once accused me of being racist for pointing out that the native American Indians were largely wiped out by white Europeans. She was upset because she said black African slavery was more important and much worse. I never said it wasn't by the way, I merely pointed out a different atrocity that took place in history.

She also told me I was racist when I pointed out that within Africa there is a big difference in ethnicity between a Moroccan person and a Kenyan and there was a difference ethnically between a Swedish person and a Spanish person.

All she could see and was saying is that there are just back and white people, and that's it, and was very convinced that white people as a whole were and are completely responsible for black African slavery. She would not budge from this position an inch even when I pointed out that it was a select group of European countries that were involved in slavery, not *all* European countries.

She also called me racist for mentioning that the British and Scottish were as well as black African slavery, involved in what was effectively white Irish slavery.

At all times during the discussion I condemned all forms of slavery by all of the people that did it to all of the people that thet did it to.

Her point she made that started me on this discussion with her was was within another discussion. She said that all white people are bad because it was whites that are responsible for black African slavery. So my response was, I am white and my ancestors were not responsible for slavery, they were from Eastern Europe. Secondly, people who are alive now, even when their ancestors were involved in slavery cannot be personally held responsible for their ancestors' actions. Yes reparations can be made by the state to the descendents of those people wronged. Also, the countries who were responsible for slavery in the 16th to 19th centuries were also treating their own populations badly, so it was only a small percentage of British, Spanish, French that caused the slavery and owned slaves, it wasn't all British, Spanish and French people.

My main point was to try to point out that not all white people are the same, that there are different ethnic groups with the white population, but she would not accept this, her viewpoint was that there are black people and there are white people and that is it.

Did anyone defend me or even in the slightest support any of my points? No of course not, they are either over woke themselves, or if they are not then they are too scared to post it on Twitter for fear of falsely being accused of being racist or of someone seeing what they said and them being cancelled, de-platformed, or their employer firing them because "their views are not in line with the values of our company."

Free thinking and the freedom to honestly debate is being stifled by over wokeism.

History has proved it's nearly impossible to go from a state of circumstances in which people of a certain group are treated unfarily, and then magically fix that problem sliding gently into a world where everyone treats each other fairly: violence in South Africa against white people is a good example; you go from something as demeaning and despicable as the Apartheid and many decades later you see black people being violent against caucasians. Another example would be the many dictatorships we had in my country (Argentina) up until 1983: you could ''disappear'' for many reasons: thinking a de facto militar government wasn't ideal or pacifically protesting against censorship, among many others. We went from that to total irreverence and sometimes sheer hatred against the police and, it goes without saying, the country's armed forces.
You can bet your life I'm completely aware of the unjust treatment towards minorities that took, and a to a way lesser extent takes, place in virtually any given country; the thing is: has the situation changed and maybe we're still adjusting? If the situation changed and we act as if nothing had changed then we're overadjusting, which is bad. Let me be clear about this: I'd choose a Netflix adaptation of Messi's life in which he's played by a black actor and Brasil is part of Eurasia, or people calling you racist when you're clearly not over real racism, in the blink of an eye; I also prefer people seeing misogyny where there is none instead of real misogyny. That doesn't mean I'm not going to point out that thinking I might be misogynistic because I said a woman was ugly is just completely unreasonable and unfair.
Anyway I think the mod chiming in and saying he used the word ''misogynistic'' to ''add some flavor'' was a way of saying that it would've been better not to use it.

Well said.

A very balanced opinion from you.

I am also very sorry to hear about the bad things that have happened in your country.

And with that, I'd say this thread has run its course. If there's more to say about the "woke movement" in general, you can share in the Politics thread I linked in my last post. Thanks!