Politics Wokism/Woke/World gone crazy



This thread is to talk about wokism and the woke trend rampant in US society and the rest of the world
What is "woke" : wiki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke
Originaly limited to afroamericans, it is spilling over all the society and all the countries. Basically it is political correctness pushed to the extrem. With social, legal, economical consequences.
A bunch of personalities and corporations have been mediaticaly hanged high because of wokism
This thread could be used as a digest for the woke situations emerging days after days mainly in the US but also over Europe when the phenomenon is spilling over.

Here is one (recent) example :
Author Walter Mosley Quits 'Star Trek: Discovery' After Using N-Word in Writers Room

Author Walter Mosley penned an op-ed for The New York Times, published on Friday, in which he revealed that he quit his job as a writer on a television series after he was "chastised" by human resources for using the N-word on the job.

Although Mosley, who is black, did not reveal which show he departed, sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that it was CBS All Access' Star Trek: Discovery. That series, renewed in February for its third season with its third showrunner, has experienced serious issues of abusive language in its writers room in the past.

Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that season three showrunners Alex Kurtzman — who sources say personally recruited Mosley to the Discovery room — and Michelle Paradise were informed of the complaint via human resources but were not present for the incident in which Mosley allegedly used the N-word multiple times. Sources note that HR called Mosley to inform the acclaimed writer and novelist that typical use of that word was a fireable offense but there was to be no course of action taken against him. Instead, HR informed Mosley that a writer in the room was uncomfortable with it and effectively wanted to ensure he was aware of the studio's policy.

"Earlier this year, I had just finished with the Snowfall writers’ room for the season when I took a similar job on a different show at a different network. I’d been in the new room for a few weeks when I got the call from human resources. A pleasant-sounding young man said, 'Mr. Mosley, it has been reported that you used the n-word in the writers’ room,'" Mosley wrote in the Times. "I replied, 'I am the N-word in the writers’ room.'"

Mosley went on to explain that the individual in HR said that while he was free to use that word in a script, he "could not say it." Mosley then clarified, "I hadn’t called anyone it. I just told a story about a cop who explained to me, on the streets of Los Angeles, that he stopped all n---ers in paddy neighborhoods and all paddies in n---er neighborhoods, because they were usually up to no good. I was telling a true story as I remembered it."

Mosley wrote that he is unaware who complained about his use of the word. "There I was, a black man in America who shares with millions of others the history of racism. And more often than not, treated as subhuman," he continued. "If addressed at all that history had to be rendered in words my employers regarded as acceptable."

"There I was being chastised for criticizing the word that oppressed me and mine for centuries. As far as I know the word is in the dictionary," said Mosley. "As far as I know the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence assure me of both the freedom of speech and the pursuit of happiness."

CBS TV Studios responded to Mosley's op-ed on Friday in a statement provided to The Hollywood Reporter: "We have the greatest admiration for Mr. Mosley’s writing talents and were excited to have him join Star Trek: Discovery. While we cannot comment on the specifics of confidential employee matters, we are committed to supporting a workplace where employees feel free to express concerns and where they feel comfortable performing their best work. We wish Mr. Mosley much continued success."

While Mosley did not say he was immediately threatened with termination, he ultimately decided to leave the show. "My answer to HR was to resign and move on. I was in a writers’ room trying to be creative while at the same time being surveilled by unknown critics who would snitch on me to a disembodied voice over the phone," he wrote. "My every word would be scrutinized. Sooner or later I’d be fired or worse — silenced."

Sources say Mosley — who had been on staff for three weeks — suddenly stopped coming in to the Santa Monica-based Secret Hideout offices that serve as the writers rooms for Discovery, Picard and multiple other Star Trek shows. Paradise and Kurtzman, who previously dismissed two Discovery showrunners after claims of abusive language and behavior, later learned that Mosley had quit the series without so much as a call to explain what happened. (It's worth noting that Discovery has a particularly inclusive writers room that includes three African American scribes, two Asian American writers, a Native American and Latinx woman, among others.)

Mosley ended his op-ed by saying, "The worst thing you can do to citizens of a democratic nation is to silence them." He elaborated, "And the easiest way to silence a woman or a man is to threaten his or her livelihood. Let’s not accept the McCarthyism of secret condemnation. Instead let’s delve a little deeper, limiting the power that can be exerted over our citizens, their attempts to express their hearts and horrors, and their desire to speak their truths. Only this can open the dialogue of change."

Star Trek: Discovery showrunners Aaron Harberts and Gretchen Berg were fired ahead of season two in June 2018. At the time, sources told THR that the duo — who replaced original showrunner Bryan Fuller — had leadership and operational issues that led to their dismissal. Insiders stressed that Berg and Harberts became
increasingly abusive to the Discovery writing staff, with Harberts said to have leaned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive at a member of the show's staff. Multiple writers are said to have been uncomfortable working on the series and had threatened to file a complaint with HR or quit the series altogether before informing franchise captain and season two co-showrunner Kurtzman of the issues surrounding Berg and Harberts. After hearing rumors of HR complaints, Harberts is said to have made imposing remarks to the staff to keep concerns with the production an internal matter. Harberts and Berg declined comment at the time.

Use of the N-word in Hollywood has been a recurring subject as other executives, including former Paramount TV president Amy Powell and Netflix PR chief Jonathan Friedland, have been dismissed over use of the term in the workplace.

Maybe not true to the letter of this thread's title, but too "good" not to be shared… ()

Europe's eco-freaks have long since been ranting against SUVs, citing their above-average emissions as reason they should be banned. Now, a couple of days ago in Berlin – the unduly alimented capital of madness, whoring itself out to every bad idea – some motorist driving a Porsche Cayenne suffered a seizure in traffic and, unfortunately, swerved into a bunch of people on a sidewalk, killing four.

Believe it or not, the prohibitionist campaign has gained considerable traction since. We have actual living, breathing people sitting in actual mainstream talk shows these days who tell us that SUVs are too dangerous to be legal. Even though a medical emergency caused this tragedy and even though a fricking Smart car could've killed those unfortunate bystanders just as easily.

It's sheer madness. There is, of course, some backlash. Yet still the party behind the campaign stands at an alarming 22% in the polls.
Mordoror’s post focus for now on racism and slurs against or aimed at black people. I’m not black and won’t speak for them but I have pretty disgusting memories going only as “far” as the very early 90s when stupid “school mates” would mock the only few black kids we had then and calling them the N words and the likes.

Recently, Tarantino took a lot of crap for making Leo says that word in every of his sentences in his movie “Django Unchained”. Sure it’s Hollywood, sure it was the context then in rural Southern States.

“PC” now... I don’t know, I use this acronym just like many but I’ve been called out on it too... because supposedly I don’t understand the mockery and discriminations against Gays, Lesbians, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Muslims or Aliens...

Complicated issue here again but worthy topic of discussion.

Hell even when one (on the Internet) tries to defend himself and explain that he has multiples friends of various ethnic backgrounds people will bash you because now saying “I have a Black/Latino/Arab friend” is the definition of racism these days and for them an attempt at trying to get credibility. Troubled times.
Mordoror’s post focus for now on racism and slurs against or aimed at black people.

It should be in no way limited to that in the discussion. Wokism has largely spilled over the black people issue. In fact it is one of the symptom of the "everything but straight white male in his fourty".

Hardcore vegans, feminists, specists, racialist are all about some kind of woke. Safe havens in US universities, forbidden words on TV (including the N-word, the F-word and others), cultural appropriation concept are all part of this phenomenon.

I am understanding what you are saying, @Jake84 . We are not in other side shoes. I was astonished when black (from Antilles islands) friends were becoming uncomfortable with "Tête de Nègres" cakes. But i feel this is going too far. Contextualisation is everything and without contextualisation, people are reacting with guts without rationale thinking anymore. That's both sad and scary.
No problem buddy and I understood your thread was on this overall and trendy PC culture of these times.
Dave Chapelle made that point in his latest show, about he could says the "n word", though he could not say the "f word" (which, for the sake of clarity is "fag").
His producer or whoever was in charge of his show, maybe a sort of supervisor or something, told him he could not use the "f word" because he was not one himself. To which he answered he could use the "n word", yet he is not one himself either.
Last edited:
Dave Chapelle made that point in his latest show, about he could says the "n word", though he could not say the "f word" (which, for the sake of clarity is "fag").
His producer or whoever was in charge of his show, maybe a sort of supervisor or something, told him he would no use the "f word" because he was not one himself. To which he answered he could use the "n word", yet he is not one himself either.
Thanks Ivan
That's exactly the kind of irrational approach i wanted to speak about ....
A cross-social paradigm shift has begun, away from a perception of right and wrong grounded in intention towards a concept basing guilt on mere completion.

For example – though I can't remember the specifics anymore –, a while ago some human resource manager in the US was fired after giving a seminar on cultural sensitivity. All he'd done was tell the employees they must not use racist vocabulary, but since he'd not just paraphrased the words but uttered them out loud someone felt emotionally disturbed and complained to management.

What's so troubling about this development is you cannot even explain its troubling nature to a growing number of people anymore. Yet our entire culture is grounded in an understanding of justice asking: Why did it happen?, not What did happen?

It's the very reason why one and the same deed – say, the shooting of a person – could constitute murder, manslaughter, an act of negligence, a killing in self-defence or even assisted suicide.
The consequences ranging from life in prison all the way down to getting to walk free illustrate why the motive is key; no one with half a brain would dispute the enormous relevance of the differences here.

However, it isn't the only way how a culture going "woke" has begun to undermine justice in the Western world. Our laws and norms are also based on objectivity. We don't get to define if or how we were wronged, the law does it for us so long as our case meets its requirements. Conventional wisdom held that an assault, for example could not have been committed if the perpetrator was not physically present.

But buckling under the pressure of the woke ones, our elites have created a system of justice (both institutional and otherwise) where almost any allegation will suffice. No objective observer (in the sense of the hypothetical flawless arbiter posited by law) needs to be consulted anymore; all that matters is someone's raised their hand and claimed they've been wronged.

Last but not least, I'd go so far as to suggest the prevalent ideology actually produces racism rather than undermining it.

When we're expected to cry racism if a black person is called the n-word, but not expected to perceive it is racist when a black person hurls unequivocally racial slurs at a white person, then it only goes to show the intention is not to fight racism but weaponize the allegation in the sense of a racial class war, devaluating or downright challenging the existence of racism as a legit phenomenon. With sexism or homophobia it is no different.

The left justifies this imbalance by adding a completely arbitrary criterion to the definitions of that merry-go-around of -isms: the distribution of power in society. Their actual definition of racism is not the use of inflammatory speech or hostile actions towards members of another ethnicity anymore – but the use of speech or actions by members of those in power against the purportedly powerless.

And in case the tenure of, say, Barack Obama or Angela Merkel was not enough to illustrate how criminally absurd this attempt to deny the existence of, say, black-on-white racism or female-on-male sexism is; let's embark on a little mind game:

Lock Donald Trump and Claressa Shields in a room together. Who's more powerful?
And who's more powerful in this funny train car: Ten Muslim immigrants or little ol' me?

This is not to deny "conventional" racism, misogyny and so on are more prevalent than their counterparts. That's not what they argue, though. They argue other forms of discrimination don't even exist.

In doing so, they divide the world into people whose dignity deserves protection and those whose dignity can be trampled all over. They divide the world into people who get to be proud of their immutable features and those who don't. But they just usurped that authority, for everyone to see. Why they think that anyone should accept such a heinous ideology and not just assume they have the authority to come up with their own shyte is utterly beyond me.
Last edited:
About Safe spaces

Safe Spaces On College Campuses Are Creating Intolerant Students

There are two ideas about safe spaces,” he explained, referring to some college students’ request for “safe spaces,” where they can get together without being exposed to ideas and speech that make them feel uncomfortable. “One is a very good idea, and one is a terrible idea.” The good idea, he said, is “being physically safe on campus, not being subjected to sexual harassment and physical abuse.”

Jones continued:

“But there is another view that is now ascendant … It’s a horrible view, which is that ‘I need to be safe ideologically, I need to be safe emotionally, I just need to feel good all the time. And if someone else says something that I don’t like, that is a problem for everyone else, including the administration.”
Jones suggested that safe spaces insulating students from certain ideas contradicts the purpose of a university:

I think that’s a terrible idea for the following reason: I don’t want you to be safe ideologically. I don’t want you to be safe emotionally. I want you to be strong. That’s different. I’m not going to pave the jungle for you. Put on some boots, and learn how to deal with adversity. I’m not going to take the weights out of the gym. That’s the whole point of the gym.
You can’t live on a campus where people say stuff that you don’t like? […] You are creating a kind if liberalism that the minute it crosses the street into the real world is not just useless but obnoxious and dangerous. I want you to be offended every single day on this campus. I want you to be deeply aggrieved and offended and upset and then to learn how to speak back.

Van Jones’s remarks were met with applause from the audience. But six professors at Wellesley College didn’t hear or didn’t heed Van Jones’s advice. In an email to the Wellesley community in the aftermath of a recent visit by leading feminist intellectual and cultural critic Laura Kipnis, they proposed setting up a censorship committee to vet speakers in order to make sure that “disempowered groups” would be protected from ideas and speech they find offensive and harmful. The professors claimed that bringing somebody like Kipnis and other “guest speakers with controversial and objectionable beliefs” to campus “impose on the liberty of students, staff and faculty at Wellesley.”

This is exactly the kind of reasoning dictatorships use to shut down unwanted speech, where censorship is justified in the name of security, public safety or social harmony. That’s top-down censorship. But censorship can also be exercised from the bottom up. This has been the case with students who exclude, disinvite and shut down speakers whose opinions they don’t like. It’s a big irony that the Wellesley professors’ call for censorship happened as a reaction to Kipnis’s talk at Censorship Awareness Week. And it’s baffling to see professors at an elite college being unable to distinguish between bullying the disempowered and making an argument. Alexis Zhang, a former Wellesley student, castigated the professors’ e-mail in an op-ed in the Boston Herald:

The message — shocking for any institution of learning — is that Wellesley students should not need to tax their minds and hearts rebutting arguments they find disagreeable.
As a Wellesley alumna, I find this alarming. What would a campus without disagreement look like? How can Wellesley do its job of preparing women leaders to challenge orthodoxies and make their mark on the world without unfettered commitment to freedom of expression and dialogue? As the college’s own mission statement points out: ‘There is no greater benefit to one’s intellectual and social development … than the forthright engagement with and exploration of unfamiliar viewpoints and experiences.’
The rest here : https://www.huffpost.com/entry/safe...qXe5RMF-d-3MEcs0ciyas1KmXAz9LosESHmmTEUgBl4VG

I have to say that i fully agree with Van Jones. Safe space are like helicopter parenting for (sub)adults. Being overly protective wuth kinds gave us the King Kid generation. Being overly protective of teens/subadults will give us a pussy generation that won't be able to cope with real life issues. Life is not all the time rosy, you have to have a thick skin sometimes. And a thick skin is not appearing from nowhere but has to be forged.
I suspect that this kind of behaviour will increase future use in depressions, antidepressants, addictive activities or asocial activities to try to vent out the stress generated by life events all these students are not prepared to meet anymore ...
Last edited by a moderator:
A funny case of "woke" from Germany ():

A Berlin court ruled today that crude comments hurled against a bigwig of the oppositional Green Party, Renate Kuenast MP, were not justiciable defamation but lawful criticism protected by the right to free speech.

The defendant had written expletive-laden tirades against Kuenast in his social media, calling her, amongst other things, a "disgusting cᴜnt" and a "piece of toxic waste" that ought to be buried "at a toxic waste dumpsite".

The outcry is huge. Kuenast herself says democracy is in danger and insinuates a sexist motivation among the judges, while politicians and journalists of all sides (except the right) call for the decision to be overturned.

And now, the million-dollar question:

What do you think their reactions were when a year ago the same court (albeit not the same judges) had decided that it was not unlawful to call Alice Weidel MP – the chairwoman of the likewise oppositional right-wing Alternative for Germany – a "Nazi slut" and "fake dyke" whose "cᴜnt-head" ought to be "amputated"?

Just to avoid confusion given my polemic opening sentence, though: This is not a case of alleged hate-speech. Civil Law, and Romano-Germanic Law in particular, have always placed a strong emphasis on what's in these parts called a right to personal honour. It's nothing new and truth be told, judging by precedents Kuenast might've actually been wronged here like Weidel was.

The issue that I have is with the double standards. Kuenast is woke and Weidel isn't, hence the public's sympathy for one and glee for the other.
Last edited:
Serves him right that he'll fall over his own double standards, though.
Can Global Citizen fit here?

This is a new mod thing to be. Woodstock commune. While admirable are they also aware of the implications they are in bed with globalism, G7 Davos et al that they usually protest.
It's just ridiculous, though. I'd get it if someone got angry at a person that dressed up as some sort of caricature cotton picker. But as Aladdin? Come the feck on.

Come the next carnival, I think I'll roam the streets and bash tiaras off the little girls' heads. "The fᴜck you're a princess! Show me your birth certificate then, you cultural appropriationist!"
Wokism has long since spilled over to Germany. Some five or six years ago already, publishing companies began to swap the N word in new editions of classic works of children's literature. Be it "Pippi Longstocking" or books by German author Ottfried Preussler.

And I remember watching a recent TV documentary about this very topic where they showed footage of one occasion where even a verbatim reading of ML King's famous speech ("I have a dream") was interrupted by a hollering crowd, because the reciter dared to read the original text wherein King himself had frequently used the word that must not be spoken.
It's just ridiculous, though. I'd get it if someone got angry at a person that dressed up as some sort of caricature cotton picker. But as Aladdin? Come the feck on.

Come the next carnival, I think I'll roam the streets and bash tiaras off the little girls' heads. "The fᴜck you're a princess! Show me your birth certificate then, you cultural appropriationist!"

Agree. It’s not “socially acceptable” these days to caricature a Black person the way Turdeau did as a student, but come on. We are not talking post civil war KKK lynching and watermelon clichés. It’s over the top PC but I’m glad in a way this will backlash against the so-called progressive he is.

Similar threads