Wokeness

Do you think equal rights is an “ideological view”? Racists thought equal rights for black people was an ideological view. They lost that battle so now they have turned their focus to transgender people

• I think the term “woke” has become pretty meaningless and is just another of those words with negative connotations that are used to dismiss opinions we may disagree with without having to engage anyone in debate.

privileges to minorities

By privileges you mean what? If someone says they want to be called African American or they instead of she, is that a burden you simply can not bare?

I don't know what its going on in the States but in my country we don't use this shit. 

I am going to disagree here. Those who are referred to as woke normally are the ones using "social justice" to avoid debate. 

Bring up an argument and you are white splaining or man splaining. Use cancel culture tactics to maintain a bubble of just one opinion on social media platforms. Think it was 5 million people dead in the Holocaust and not 6 million than they use that wrong think to shut you up. Wokism is a crusade against debate. 

It's not much different than the moral outrages of conservatives in prior decades who heavily censored television and comics. 

Take a look at any woke movement such as fat acceptance and you can see exactly how it's most vocal advocates debate. 

Being too heavy can lead to a lot of negative health outcomes.

FA woke person- well actually BMI was created by a white person for white bodies so it is racist to think thin is better. *proceeds to ban sensible medical professional from chat. 

Perhaps woke is becoming meaningless as a catch all for anybody with leftist leanings, but I don't think it's there yet and can still be a useful term. 

Debating with fanatics, be they political, religious or those driven by conspiracy theories will ultimately be doomed to failure

I also have issues with the official record being contradictory or having holes in it. For example with the Holocaust I seem to see stories of every prominent nazi woman being a sexual sadist. Clearly a ridiculous thing. I talked to a history professor who claims that this labeling of women as sexual sadists is incorrect, but doesn't explain how this obvious lie in the official narrative would need to be made if the events were true and actually happened. 

Clearly a ridiculous thing.

I am driven by conspiracy theories and disagree. I will explain how you can change my mind from being less conspirational.

Premise 1- bad people in general are good at obtaining power due to morals not being a handcuff on them. 

Bad in this context is defined as people who may have good goals but no moral hindrances to achieve those goals even when the goals are altruistic.

I have personally been close to powerful people who have shown me their dark side, but there are studies that support these people are less inclined to help a stranger in need for example, drive more aggressively etc. It's just much easier to get power if you aren't held back by normal morals. 

Premise 2- these people behave in a type of silent agreement. They have similar goals and will not call out anybody pursuing their same goals for having an ends justify the means philosophy. 

We can see this by looking at the collective effects of their policies. For example the numerous policies which are working in concert to slow population growth or reverse it such as the promotion of homosexuality, transgenderism which sterilizes children, euthenasia, abortion, bill gates efforts to slow population growth in 3rd world countries via more ethical behaviors than ones mentioned prior to that. 

Conclusion- conspiracies happens as a result of collectively staying out of each other's ways for to meet similar ends. 

You could prove me wrong in the following ways.

1. Show that the people in positions of power are either equally as moral as society in general which would require disproving studies I have access to as well as explaining how morality is helpful at obtaining power and money. 

2. Show that powerful people working towards the same ends often will try to prevent people with a similar end goal from achieving that goal from unethical means.

For example bill gates wants to slow population growth, showing him opposing abortion, gender reassignment surgery etc. I would need to also see the individual powerful person is not just a lone operator and it is normal to oppose those wanting the same ends as them. 

3. You could also change my mind by showing that powerful people have less power than they project.

Just as an insight into how a conspiracy theorist picks up knowledge if it helps.

Since powerful people can control things often through a silent conspiracy than things like media cannot be trusted to so we would use the concept of "cui Bono" to determine the goals of those in charge. 

For example studies on man made global warming can't be trusted because of ideology driving the scientists and the fact that contrarian opinions are hidden or cause people to lose their careers instead of being met with actual arguments and rebuttals. Typically the truth can win arguments and not need to silence contrary opinions. 

I am not stuck on any belief. I just have an extreme distrust of those who have power, wealth and status because I think to get those things you have to be a bad person 

You have literally lost the point of my post and created some red herrings for yourself. Argue against the thesis of the statement 

I think I mostly agree with this although I find “bad person

That is possible I must admit that I found it rather vague and I can’t identify a thesis in your post, perhaps you could elucidate.

Clearly. I mean, why would a normal woman not want to work at a concentration camp where you get to murder women and children?

People often get government jobs to feed their family and oppose many of their governments policies. It really is amazing somebody can be so stupid as to think people with government jobs all agree with their government 100%