A Definition of "Woke"

 I have come up with a defintion of :"woke" for some "woke" are trying to tell us we, the non "woke" can't define it

here goes "soclal justice as conceived and pursued by immature minds". Their minds have been infantilized by post modernism, the re emergence of the cult of feeling which itself is a sub genre in the classical period (late 18th century), and cradle to grave welfarism coupled with a rejection of proper discilpine for children let me give some examples it is immature to think that only the white male is the cause of all evil; and it is immature to maintain that such a view is not racist it is immature to reject truth and exalt feelings in their place - every small child does this and if permited to continue in it becomes a spoiled brat it is immature to think that justice is a zero sum game, that therrefore to free some others must be bullied it is immature to think that their violence, exaltation of looting and murder ( the 2020 riots in the USA ) is a righteous expression of righteous anger it is immature to demand free stuff and REFUSE to even consider that maybe they could and should work for it it is immature to divide all of humanity into victim and oppressors and then lable all victims - real or imagined - as innocent i could go on but you get my point, I hope :)

A Quip by an Atheist

 A video about the historical evidence that Jesus existed had this quip by the fictional character  Dr Greg House come up  in the comment section:

"You talk to God, you’re religious; God talks to you, you’re psychotic.” - House MD

 . .To which I replied . . .

This is very  elegant, but it argues in a logical circle. This is  the fallacy of begging the question,  in latin petitio principii - to petition the principle  ie appealing to what you re trying to prove.

For to have any currency this quip  has to presume that God does not exist  or that such a being does not communicate. Because ONLY THEN is any claim of receiving direct   communication from the Divinity psychotic

And that is a circle, proving nothing

That is to say this is elegant but of no logical value whatsoever.

And of course the dictum, "abusus non tollit usum" also applies  here.

This is the Latin expression of the fact that abusing something  ( abusus) does not detract ( non tollit ) from proper use  (usum.

After all does any one reject food outright because of the abuse gluttons put it to?

 That some deluded people claim hearing from God when He has not spoken, thus abusing the reality of the thing,  in NO WAY detracts from the possibility of Him deigning to do so.

So i have no real interest in House's preference on this matter, for preference is all this is.

He is a fictional character  i found entertaining.  But i watched the entire show for entertainment, NOT wisdon