[8 / 3 / ?]
160KiB, 700x989, 0728afdf1c22ea4d5340161a3d6913bda647eca33d84502ad316fc9a055e77c4.jpg
Quoted By: >>11733837 >>11733949 >>11733958
Wokeness isn't new, rather it merely changes hands.
"Wokeness" is simply normie groupthink. It is showing your adherence to the -accepted narrative- of the times, and thus reaffirming your social status as a "Good person™" by signaling your compliance.
The concept of wokeness has been in existence for the entirety of humanity. The only thing that changes, is the -narrative- behind which group is considered "Victims™", but not the virtue signalling.
For instance, in the 1970s the -narrative- was largely controlled by Christfags. Being against MUH SAYTANISM was effectively that eras version of being against MUH INSTUHTOOSHUNAL DISCRIMUHNAYSHUN as today. The concept is the same, the only difference is who the Victims™ are and who the Boogeyman™ is.
An era can be judged purely on how realistic their wokeness was. Todays wokeness is shit, because literally anyone can claim victimhood as we base wokeness in the current era on identity rather than any objective reality. This is why phrases like "Islam is right about women" tend to fry normie brains, as the basic concept of identity politics creating victim status marks both these groups as free from criticism or responsibility despite the fact that the beliefs of Islam directly contradict feminism. Todays wokeness also identifies meritocracy as the boogeyman, which is unsustainable in almost every possible way imaginable.
1950s wokeness on the other hand, was founded on sustainable principles of nationalism and was pretty fucking based, hence why it led to the biggest economic boom in human history.
Turns out, you can judge a seed by it's fruit.
"Wokeness" is simply normie groupthink. It is showing your adherence to the -accepted narrative- of the times, and thus reaffirming your social status as a "Good person™" by signaling your compliance.
The concept of wokeness has been in existence for the entirety of humanity. The only thing that changes, is the -narrative- behind which group is considered "Victims™", but not the virtue signalling.
For instance, in the 1970s the -narrative- was largely controlled by Christfags. Being against MUH SAYTANISM was effectively that eras version of being against MUH INSTUHTOOSHUNAL DISCRIMUHNAYSHUN as today. The concept is the same, the only difference is who the Victims™ are and who the Boogeyman™ is.
An era can be judged purely on how realistic their wokeness was. Todays wokeness is shit, because literally anyone can claim victimhood as we base wokeness in the current era on identity rather than any objective reality. This is why phrases like "Islam is right about women" tend to fry normie brains, as the basic concept of identity politics creating victim status marks both these groups as free from criticism or responsibility despite the fact that the beliefs of Islam directly contradict feminism. Todays wokeness also identifies meritocracy as the boogeyman, which is unsustainable in almost every possible way imaginable.
1950s wokeness on the other hand, was founded on sustainable principles of nationalism and was pretty fucking based, hence why it led to the biggest economic boom in human history.
Turns out, you can judge a seed by it's fruit.
