#SelfCensorship

[civicsavvy]

They Should've Left the Kids Alone: The Battle Against the Woke Mind Virus

Defining the Woke Mind Virus

The term "woke" initially emerged as a call to awareness, a term signaling consciousness of social inequalities and the injustices faced by marginalized groups. It advocated for individuals to be "awake" to issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. Over time, however, what started as a movement for greater empathy and awareness evolved into something more divisive, driven by ideological rigidity and a sense of moral absolutism. Today, the word “woke” has taken on new connotations, often used to describe a cultural force that, some argue, pressures individuals and institutions to conform to a specific worldview that stifles open dialogue and diversity of thought.

The concept of the "woke mind virus," a phrase made popular by high-profile figures like Elon Musk, represents a critical view of how this ideology affects society—particularly children and young adults. It suggests that the “woke” approach is not simply about encouraging social awareness but has become a prescriptive force that dictates what is acceptable to think, say, and believe. Critics argue that this pervasive mindset can limit intellectual curiosity, foster self-censorship, and impose a homogeneous way of thinking that overshadows genuine diversity and individual thought.

How Woke Culture Developed

To understand the “woke mind virus,” it is essential to look at the path "woke" culture has taken and how its message and impact have changed over the years. The roots of this ideology trace back to social justice movements, which, throughout history, have championed worthy causes to expand rights and equality. The Civil Rights Movement, Women’s Liberation Movement, and LGBTQ+ rights movements all share a legacy of challenging the status quo and broadening society’s perspective on what it means to be equal and just.

In recent years, however, the ideals within these movements began transforming in ways that critics argue stray from their original goals. Instead of expanding freedom, some contend that aspects of “woke” culture restrict it, as it shifts from advocacy for awareness to demands for conformity. In institutions such as schools, universities, and media outlets, these shifts have been increasingly evident, manifesting in curricula, policies, and media narratives. While supporters argue that this approach educates and empowers the young generation, opponents worry it replaces critical thinking with a narrow set of approved beliefs, stifling genuine debate.

The Impact on Society

The “woke mind virus” metaphor extends beyond mere ideology, suggesting that the cultural shift has spread like a contagion, impacting societal norms, behaviors, and institutions. Critics point to educational systems where certain viewpoints are prioritized over others, entertainment industries that redefine cultural norms, and corporations that impose social ideologies on employees. Opponents argue that such changes not only reshape societal standards but also undermine long-standing values like freedom of speech, individual responsibility, and critical inquiry.

At the core of this concern is how young people are influenced. Children are at formative stages, learning not only academic skills but also how to understand and interact with the world around them. By teaching them a limited worldview, critics argue, “woke” culture risks eroding their ability to think independently, question assumptions, and engage with diverse perspectives.

Elon Musk’s Warning

In recent years, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has become one of the most outspoken critics of woke culture. Musk's warning that society must “destroy the woke mind virus” has sparked significant discussion. By using the term “virus,” Musk implies that this mindset spreads quickly and with negative consequences, much like a pathogen. He worries that unchecked, this cultural trend will not only damage individual creativity and freedom but also degrade the foundations of Western society.

Why does Musk believe this issue is particularly pressing for children? His statements suggest a conviction that young people, especially those growing up in the current age of social media and online platforms, are at risk of adopting these views without ever being exposed to alternative perspectives. In Musk's view, today's youth could face a future where they are discouraged from thinking for themselves and from questioning mainstream narratives—a world where conformity replaces creativity and intellectual freedom.

Musk’s criticism is not merely about disagreement with social issues or progressive values; rather, it’s about the preservation of open discourse, critical thinking, and the individual’s ability to make independent choices. To Musk and others who share his views, these values are under threat in the current climate, and the focus on “protecting the kids” is central. Children are seen as both the primary targets and the most vulnerable victims of a culture that prioritizes ideological adherence over personal agency and freedom of thought.

Essay Overview

In this essay, we will explore how the “woke mind virus” has evolved and the extent of its influence on various aspects of modern society. We will delve into its impact on the following areas:

Education: How curriculum changes and institutional pressures shape the minds of young people.

Media and Entertainment: The role of media in normalizing certain beliefs and silencing dissent.

Corporate Culture: The ways in which workplaces enforce specific ideologies, influencing both employees and consumers.

Parenting and Social Media: How the dynamics of parenting have shifted in the age of social media and polarized values.

This essay aims not only to critique but also to spark thoughtful discussion on these changes, emphasizing the importance of freedom, critical thinking, and individual empowerment. We will examine how preserving these values, especially in the minds of the next generation, may be the key to a more resilient and truly diverse society.

If you’re looking to understand the roots and implications of modern "woke" culture and its impact on free thought, I highly recommend reading Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. This insightful book dives deep into how the ideas that now shape social justice movements evolved from postmodern philosophy into a powerful, sometimes divisive force in today’s society. Pluckrose and Lindsay unpack the ideologies behind concepts like critical race theory, gender studies, and other activist frameworks that have made their way from academia into mainstream culture.

The Rise of Woke Ideology

To understand the origins of what some today call the “woke mind virus,” we must trace its roots back through a series of pivotal social and political movements that sought to dismantle entrenched injustices and promote greater equity in society. The early foundations of woke ideology can be found in the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when activists challenged institutionalized racism and fought for equal rights and protections under the law. This movement was revolutionary, advocating for necessary and long-overdue change by demanding that society confront deep-seated biases and discriminatory practices.

The ideals behind the civil rights movement influenced other causes that soon followed, including the women’s liberation movement and LGBTQ+ rights movement. These movements shared a commitment to rectifying societal wrongs and expanding rights for marginalized groups. The 1970s and 1980s saw the rise of feminism, which fought for gender equality, and the gay rights movement, which sought to protect the rights and dignity of the LGBTQ+ community. Each of these movements encouraged society to become “awake” to issues of discrimination, injustice, and inequality, gradually planting the seeds of what would later be known as “woke” culture.

The 1990s and early 2000s marked a shift from traditional political movements to a more academic form of social critique. Universities became fertile ground for progressive social theories, as postmodernism, critical race theory, and gender studies gained traction in academic circles. These disciplines promoted new ways of understanding power, identity, and oppression, framing them as interconnected forces that shape individuals' experiences. The concept of “intersectionality,” coined by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, posited that different forms of oppression—like race, gender, and class—are interconnected, helping to illuminate the complexity of social identities. These theories gained momentum and eventually made their way into mainstream conversations on social justice and identity politics, informing the language and tactics that would define modern-day woke ideology.

Over the years, the increasing influence of these movements and theories created a growing awareness of systemic discrimination and privilege, urging individuals to consider the ways in which society disproportionately benefits certain groups while disadvantaging others. This new wave of social consciousness prompted many to reconsider long-standing social norms, making terms like “privilege,” “microaggressions,” and “allyship” part of everyday discourse.

Woke in the Mainstream

Initially, the ideas that underpin woke culture circulated in niche circles—academia, activist groups, and small communities advocating for progressive change. But by the 2010s, several factors converged to bring these ideas into the mainstream: the rise of social media, increasing cultural polarization, and a growing appetite for advocacy against all forms of social injustice.

Social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram became critical vehicles for the spread of woke ideology, turning complex social issues into viral discussions that could quickly mobilize public opinion. For example, movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo demonstrated the power of digital activism, uniting people across the globe to demand justice for racial violence and sexual harassment. These platforms also created a space where individuals could voice personal grievances, share stories of discrimination, and rally others to their causes. Hashtags became tools of advocacy, allowing people to find community and solidarity in their shared experiences.

As woke ideology spread, its influence began to permeate popular culture, making its mark on media, entertainment, and advertising. Major corporations began to incorporate woke messaging into their branding, using advertising campaigns to show solidarity with social causes. Television shows, movies, and music began incorporating themes of social justice, identity, and inclusion. For many, this shift represented a positive change—a sign that mainstream society was becoming more empathetic, inclusive, and aware of inequality.

However, critics argue that as these ideas became more widespread, the movement shifted from its roots in social justice toward a form of moral rigidity that demands ideological conformity. What started as a call for greater awareness has, in some cases, become an expectation of adherence to specific values and beliefs, with limited tolerance for dissenting viewpoints. Social media “cancel culture” quickly emerged as a way to hold individuals and institutions accountable for views or actions perceived as discriminatory, but its application expanded rapidly to target those who merely disagreed with mainstream narratives. Some argue that this dynamic has contributed to a climate of self-censorship, where individuals, fearing public backlash, avoid expressing opinions that diverge from the accepted narrative.

This ideological shift began to affect not only public discourse but also schools, workplaces, and even government policies. Many schools began implementing programs and curricula focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, teaching children about concepts like privilege, systemic racism, and gender identity from a young age. Supporters see this as a necessary step toward educating young people about social issues, but opponents worry that these initiatives are one-sided, presenting a limited perspective on complex topics and stifling critical thinking.

Corporations, too, have embraced woke ideals, often instituting diversity and inclusion policies that promote certain ideological frameworks. From training programs designed to increase awareness of unconscious biases to company-wide pledges to fight systemic inequality, corporate America has embraced the language and values of woke culture. While these initiatives may seem well-intentioned, some employees have voiced concerns about feeling pressured to adopt certain beliefs to avoid potential repercussions in the workplace.

Even government policies and legislation have increasingly reflected woke ideology. Local and state governments across the United States have adopted policies related to diversity and inclusion, including mandates on public school curricula and restrictions on what can and cannot be taught. These policies are intended to create safe, inclusive spaces, but they have sparked significant debate about the role of government in dictating educational content and enforcing ideological norms.

Conclusion: The Cultural Shift

The rapid rise of woke ideology has transformed society in profound ways, introducing new ways of thinking about identity, justice, and equality. Supporters see it as a movement that brings marginalized voices to the forefront and challenges outdated norms that uphold discrimination. Critics, however, contend that what began as a call for awareness has morphed into a culture of ideological conformity that restricts freedom of thought, individual expression, and meaningful debate.

Woke Influence on Children and Education

Curriculum Changes

Over the past decade, the rise of social justice principles, critical race theory (CRT), and gender ideology has led to substantial shifts in the way education is structured in schools across the United States and other parts of the Western world. What was once limited to higher Woke Influence on Children and Education has now reached K-12 classrooms, where teachers are increasingly encouraged, and sometimes mandated, to introduce these concepts to children at young ages.

In many public and private schools, curricula now include lessons focused on topics like systemic racism, privilege, and gender identity. Educational initiatives and frameworks based on CRT aim to provide students with a perspective that critiques historical and present societal structures through the lens of race and power. Proponents argue that such curricula equip students to better understand the historical roots of racial disparities and encourage empathy toward marginalized groups. By teaching children about topics like colonialism, privilege, and systemic inequality, supporters believe students will gain a more inclusive understanding of history and the present day.

Gender ideology, too, has become a more prominent feature of modern education. In certain regions, elementary and middle school curricula include discussions on gender fluidity, transgender identity, and the concept that gender exists along a spectrum rather than as a binary. Schools often present these topics as part of health and social studies classes, aiming to cultivate a generation that is more accepting of diverse gender expressions and identities. For some parents and educators, this approach represents an essential step toward creating more inclusive school environments.

However, these changes have generated significant controversy. Critics argue that introducing concepts like CRT and gender theory to young children may bypass age-appropriate education, presenting complex social and political theories as established facts rather than subjects for open exploration. Opponents express concerns that, instead of encouraging students to think critically about these subjects, schools are teaching students to accept specific ideologies. They worry that these shifts in curriculum can expose children to emotionally and developmentally challenging topics that may be inappropriate for their age and maturity level.

In some cases, parents and educators have raised concerns about schools prioritizing social and ideological education at the expense of core academic subjects. For instance, reports of schools devoting significant portions of the academic calendar to workshops or assemblies focused on social justice issues suggest that traditional topics like math, science, and history may receive less emphasis. In response, some parents and advocacy groups argue that the primary role of education should be to equip students with foundational academic skills, leaving ideological discussions for later, once students have developed the ability to critically evaluate them.

Impact on Critical Thinking

One of the primary critiques of incorporating woke ideology into education is its potential impact on students’ ability to think independently and critically. Education, at its best, encourages students to question assumptions, analyze multiple perspectives, and form their own conclusions. However, critics argue that when schools introduce certain social justice concepts as uncontested truths, they inadvertently discourage independent thought. Rather than inviting students to explore a wide range of ideas and viewpoints, woke-oriented curricula sometimes present a single narrative, leaving little room for debate or dissent.

For example, a curriculum focused on critical race theory may emphasize systemic oppression and the historical role of power dynamics in shaping society. While this is an important perspective, some argue that it can be problematic if it’s the only viewpoint students are exposed to. Opponents of this approach believe that education should allow room for alternative interpretations, enabling students to consider a variety of factors and draw their own conclusions. In contrast, a strictly CRT-based curriculum might leave students with a predetermined set of ideas about society, potentially fostering a limited worldview.

Similarly, lessons on gender ideology in schools often portray gender as a social construct, encouraging students to view gender identity as fluid rather than biologically determined. While this perspective can provide an inclusive understanding of gender, critics worry that it discourages students from critically examining different viewpoints on the subject, including biological perspectives. Some parents and educators argue that students should be allowed to explore different theories on gender, sex, and identity in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of these complex issues.

There are also concerns about the emotional impact of such curricula on young students. When children are taught concepts like privilege, oppression, and systemic bias at a young age, critics argue that it can foster a sense of guilt or anxiety, especially among children who may be too young to fully understand these topics. Some psychologists have expressed concerns that these discussions might lead to increased stress and self-doubt in children, particularly if they feel blamed or responsible for societal issues they are only beginning to understand. For students who may already feel vulnerable or unsure of their identities, these teachings can introduce additional layers of complexity that can hinder their personal development.

Ultimately, those who are critical of woke-inspired curricula argue that these approaches risk fostering a narrative-based education, where students are encouraged to adopt a specific worldview instead of learning to weigh evidence, question sources, and form opinions independently. In their view, genuine critical thinking is best cultivated by exposing students to a range of perspectives, encouraging them to question all viewpoints—including those endorsed by their teachers—and helping them build a strong foundation in logical reasoning.

Case Studies

Several real-world examples illustrate how woke ideology has influenced schools and educational systems, sparking both support and backlash. Below are a few notable cases:

California Ethnic Studies Curriculum

In California, the state government introduced an Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum aimed at helping students understand and appreciate the diversity of California’s population. The curriculum includes lessons on the historical and cultural contributions of various ethnic groups, as well as discussions of power dynamics and systemic oppression. While supporters commend this approach for promoting cultural understanding, some parents and educators have criticized certain elements of the curriculum as too ideologically driven. They argue that it overemphasizes themes of oppression and victimhood, potentially leading students to view society primarily through a lens of conflict and division.

Gender Identity Education in New Jersey Elementary Schools

In New Jersey, recent updates to state education standards include guidelines that encourage elementary schools to introduce students to concepts of gender identity and gender expression. Under the guidelines, children as young as second grade learn that “gender exists along a spectrum,” and teachers are encouraged to avoid reinforcing traditional gender roles. While some see this as a step toward creating a more inclusive environment, opponents argue that these lessons are too advanced for young children, who may struggle to understand abstract concepts of gender. This approach has sparked intense debate among parents, some of whom feel that discussions about gender should be left to families, rather than mandated by state policies.

The Loudoun County, Virginia School District Controversy

Loudoun County, Virginia, became a focal point for debates about CRT in schools when its school board proposed training for teachers on “culturally responsive teaching” and racial equity. The district’s policies included initiatives to combat systemic racism and promote inclusion, but many parents objected, arguing that the policies amounted to indoctrination. Some parents alleged that the policies unfairly categorized students based on race, which they feared could lead to divisive dynamics among students. The controversy gained national attention, highlighting the broader debate about the role of CRT in education.

“Privilege Walk” Exercises in Schools Across the U.S.

In various schools, a classroom activity known as the “Privilege Walk” has become a way to teach students about privilege and inequality. During the exercise, students are asked questions related to their backgrounds, and depending on their answers, they take steps forward or backward to visualize their levels of privilege. While some educators view this as an eye-opening experience, critics argue that it can be divisive, fostering a sense of guilt or shame among students from more privileged backgrounds and potentially reinforcing feelings of resentment among those who feel disadvantaged.

Conclusion

As woke ideology continues to shape educational practices, schools face the challenge of balancing inclusivity and social awareness with the need to foster critical thinking and intellectual diversity. Supporters of woke-inspired curricula believe they offer necessary insights that prepare students to navigate an increasingly diverse and complex world. Opponents, however, worry that these curricula promote ideological conformity, limiting students’ ability to think critically and independently.

The impact of these changes on the next generation is still unfolding, but the implications are significant. How we educate children today will shape the values and perspectives they carry into adulthood, influencing society for decades to come.

Media, Technology, and the Amplification of Woke Culture

Social Media’s Role

Social media platforms have become a primary vehicle for spreading ideas, and woke culture is no exception. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok allow millions to share, comment on, and amplify woke narratives, quickly making ideas popular and accessible to broad audiences. These platforms enable users to find like-minded communities, build online movements, and apply social pressure to advance particular ideologies. Hashtags, viral posts, and influencer campaigns make it easier than ever for ideas to spread and gain momentum, often with significant real-world consequences.

One of the key ways social media amplifies woke culture is by creating spaces where certain viewpoints are privileged over others. Many algorithms are designed to prioritize content that engages viewers, and controversial or emotionally charged posts often generate more engagement. This creates an environment where ideas that align with woke narratives, especially those that touch on hot-button social justice issues, can be disproportionately highlighted, shared, and seen. Conversely, opposing perspectives may be filtered out, either due to a lack of engagement or, as critics argue, due to deliberate platform policies that suppress certain viewpoints.

Censorship and content moderation policies on platforms like Twitter and Facebook are another point of contention. While these policies are often framed as necessary for reducing hate speech or misinformation, critics argue they sometimes extend to silencing voices critical of woke ideology. Shadowbanning, de-platforming, and content removal have led some to believe that these platforms are fostering ideological conformity, particularly when individuals or organizations that challenge mainstream social narratives find their content flagged or removed. In some cases, high-profile figures who have spoken against woke culture report having their accounts suspended or limited, fueling perceptions that social media companies hold a bias against dissenting views.

TikTok, one of the fastest-growing social platforms among young people, has become especially influential in shaping youth perspectives. Its format encourages short, visually engaging content, making it easy for users to digest and repeat ideas. TikTok’s recommendation algorithms also quickly narrow content to align with users’ interests, meaning young people who engage with certain types of content—like videos on social justice or identity issues—are likely to see more of the same, reinforcing a particular worldview. This process, often referred to as an “echo chamber effect,” can make it difficult for young users to see alternative perspectives, potentially limiting their understanding of complex social issues.

The Entertainment Industry

Beyond social media, the entertainment industry has become a powerful force in promoting woke narratives. Hollywood, the music industry, and mainstream media frequently incorporate social justice themes into their storytelling, making woke culture a prominent feature of contemporary entertainment. Movies, television shows, and music increasingly address issues such as systemic racism, gender identity, and privilege, presenting these ideas in ways that often resonate with younger audiences.

Television shows and films, in particular, have begun including storylines and characters that reflect woke ideals, often framing certain perspectives as morally or socially superior. While this trend has led to greater representation and inclusion, some argue that it risks alienating audiences with differing views. Critics point to what they describe as “forced” representation—when shows or films include characters or themes that appear less about storytelling and more about promoting a specific social agenda. For example, protagonists who embody traditional values or challenge woke ideals may be portrayed as flawed or antagonistic, while those who align with progressive values are depicted as more enlightened or admirable. This one-dimensional storytelling can reinforce a narrow narrative, potentially discouraging critical examination of complex social issues.

Music, too, has become a medium for woke messaging. Songs addressing themes like empowerment, resistance, and social justice often resonate with young listeners, who may see artists as role models. While music has always reflected societal issues, the focus on woke themes in contemporary music has become especially prominent. Artists now use their platforms to advocate for specific causes, encouraging fans to view social justice as integral to their identity. This messaging is often paired with calls to action, encouraging listeners to “stay woke” and be vigilant against perceived injustices.

Mainstream media, from news outlets to digital publications, also plays a significant role in promoting woke culture. Many news organizations have taken a stance on social justice issues, adopting editorial approaches that prioritize certain narratives. Articles and news segments often focus on stories that align with woke ideology, framing these perspectives as widely accepted truths. Critics argue that this has led to a decline in balanced reporting, with news outlets sometimes presenting opinion as fact and underrepresenting alternative viewpoints. For young audiences, who may not yet have the media literacy skills to distinguish bias, this approach can reinforce a singular way of seeing the world.

Influence on Children

The cumulative effect of social media, entertainment, and mainstream media on children is substantial. Young people are exposed to these platforms daily, and the messages they encounter often shape their perceptions, values, and behavior. Unlike previous generations, today’s youth are growing up in a digital world where woke ideals are not only present but prominent, delivered to them directly through screens in increasingly sophisticated ways.

One of the key ways these media influence children is by shaping their understanding of identity. Social media platforms encourage users to define and express themselves, often in ways that align with specific social categories or labels. Concepts like gender fluidity, sexual orientation, and intersectional identity are now widely discussed among young people, and platforms like TikTok and Instagram often promote influencers who champion these ideas. While this can help children feel seen and understood, critics worry that it can also pressure them to adopt labels and identities that may not reflect who they are, but rather who they feel they should be.

Social media also encourages children to engage in activism from an early age. Many platforms provide tools for sharing social justice content, participating in virtual protests, and donating to causes. While this can empower children to make a positive impact, it can also lead to what some describe as “performative activism,” where young people engage in social justice efforts more for social approval than genuine commitment. Critics argue that this superficial engagement may create an environment where children feel compelled to voice opinions or take actions they do not fully understand, reducing complex social issues to simplistic slogans or gestures.

In addition to influencing identity and activism, media often shape children’s perceptions of morality. Shows, movies, and online influencers who promote woke ideals frequently present certain beliefs and actions as morally superior. For example, characters who challenge traditional social norms are often framed as “heroes,” while those who express more conventional or conservative views are depicted as uninformed or intolerant. This framing can create a binary understanding of morality, where young viewers come to see issues in black and white, without room for nuance. The potential consequence is a generation of children who view complex social issues through a moral lens that prioritizes ideological conformity over critical thinking.

Finally, the influence of media can impact children’s mental health. Psychologists have observed that exposure to intense social issues from a young age can lead to anxiety, stress, and self-doubt in children. For example, constant exposure to messages about systemic injustice, privilege, and oppression can create feelings of guilt or helplessness. Similarly, children who feel pressure to adopt certain identities or social stances may experience confusion or self-doubt, particularly if they do not naturally align with these expectations. In these ways, the media landscape of today presents unique mental health challenges for young people.

Conclusion

The impact of media, technology, and entertainment on today’s youth is profound and far-reaching. Social media amplifies woke ideas, sometimes at the expense of opposing viewpoints, creating online spaces where children may feel pressured to conform to certain ideologies. Meanwhile, the entertainment industry delivers these messages through beloved characters and role models, further solidifying woke ideals in young minds. As a result, children’s perceptions, identities, and moral compasses are shaped by a media landscape that increasingly promotes a singular perspective.

As we continue, we will explore how this cultural shift influences not only children’s personal development but also their interactions with family, friends, and society at large. Understanding the role media and technology play in shaping young minds is essential for parents, educators, and society as a whole, as we consider how best to prepare the next generation for a future that values diversity of thought as much as it does social justice.

The Dangers of Woke Ideology for Future Generations

Psychological Impact

Introducing complex social and political ideologies to young, impressionable minds can have lasting psychological effects. Children and adolescents are still in critical stages of cognitive and emotional development, and their understanding of self and society is often shaped by the influences around them. When children are exposed to ideologically charged narratives, they may internalize these messages before they have developed the tools to question, analyze, or choose what to believe.

One of the most significant concerns is the potential for anxiety and guilt. For example, messages that emphasize systemic oppression, privilege, and victimization may cause children to view the world as a hostile or unjust place. While an awareness of societal issues is essential, critics argue that children introduced to complex topics like racial inequality, gender dysphoria, and privilege without context or balance may experience unnecessary stress and fear. Children from more privileged backgrounds may feel guilt or shame over aspects of their identity they cannot control, like race or socioeconomic status. Conversely, children from marginalized backgrounds may come to see themselves primarily through a lens of victimhood, which can impact their self-esteem, resilience, and motivation.

The concept of identity itself can become a source of confusion and internal conflict for young people navigating the pressures of woke ideology. Children may feel pressure to align with particular social labels or ideologies, even if they don’t fully understand or identify with them. This pressure to define oneself according to societal expectations can create an identity crisis, especially for adolescents who are already in a naturally introspective stage of life. Young people who do not align with the dominant narratives on race, gender, or social justice may feel isolated or uncertain about expressing their true beliefs, leading to a sense of detachment from their own thoughts and feelings.

There is also the question of long-term mental health implications. Research in psychology suggests that internalizing a worldview centered on injustice and systemic failure can lead to heightened stress levels, increased instances of depression, and a diminished sense of agency. When young people feel that the world is inherently unjust and that their potential for success is limited by external factors, they may become pessimistic about their future. Psychologists warn that excessive focus on social and political grievances can foster a “learned helplessness,” where individuals feel incapable of changing their circumstances—a mindset that can inhibit personal growth, self-efficacy, and the pursuit of individual goals.

Division and Polarization

Woke ideology’s emphasis on identity-based issues can contribute to societal division and polarization, particularly among young people. This ideological framework often categorizes individuals by race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, emphasizing differences over commonalities. While understanding and respecting diversity is essential, critics argue that this approach fosters an "us vs. them" mentality, where individuals are encouraged to identify more with their social group than with broader society.

One effect of this mindset is the reinforcement of tribalism, where individuals align themselves with those who share their identity or beliefs and view others with skepticism or hostility. For young people, this polarization can manifest in social circles, where friendships and social connections are increasingly influenced by shared ideologies. Schools and universities are often arenas where ideological alignment can determine social acceptance, creating environments where young people feel pressured to conform to popular viewpoints to avoid social exclusion.

In extreme cases, this division extends to familial relationships. Parents who do not align with their children’s beliefs may find it challenging to engage in open dialogue, leading to strained family dynamics. Some parents report difficulty discussing certain topics with their children, fearing that any deviation from woke ideology will lead to conflict or accusations of intolerance. This erosion of open communication can weaken family bonds and contribute to generational divides, as young people increasingly turn to their peers and social media communities for validation and support.

The educational system, where many of these ideologies take root, also contributes to this division. Classrooms that emphasize identity and systemic injustice may foster resentment among students who feel labeled or judged based on their background. For example, discussions of privilege may cause students from more affluent backgrounds to feel isolated or unfairly judged, while students from marginalized backgrounds may feel reinforced in viewing themselves as perpetual victims. Such divisions can create a tense atmosphere where students are wary of one another, fostering an environment of distrust and alienation.

A further danger of this polarized mindset is that it leaves little room for compromise, empathy, or mutual understanding. When young people adopt rigid ideological positions, they may struggle to engage in meaningful conversations with those who hold different views. This polarization ultimately impacts society as a whole, as individuals who have been socialized to see the world in terms of conflicting identities are less likely to collaborate, empathize, or work toward common goals. Instead, they may become more focused on advancing their group’s interests, which can hinder societal cohesion and contribute to a cycle of resentment and conflict.

Loss of Individuality

Another potential consequence of woke ideology is the suppression of individual thought and the erosion of personal freedom. By promoting collective ideologies that emphasize group identity over individual characteristics, woke culture can create pressure to conform, stifling creativity, originality, and self-expression.

One aspect of this issue is the expectation that individuals align with specific beliefs or labels based on their identity. For instance, a person’s race, gender, or sexual orientation may lead to assumptions about their political views, social beliefs, or values. This type of identity-based expectation can make it challenging for young people to explore and define their own beliefs, particularly when they feel pressured to conform to the expectations set by their social group. Those who challenge these norms may be accused of being inauthentic or even betraying their community, which discourages independent thinking and the exploration of diverse perspectives.

The pressure to conform extends to behavior and expression, especially on social media. Young people may feel compelled to adopt certain ideologies, language, or symbols to avoid social exclusion or judgment. This social pressure can limit their ability to explore different aspects of their identity and beliefs, as they feel confined to the “acceptable” norms of their group. Social media also amplifies this effect by promoting content that aligns with dominant narratives, creating a feedback loop where individuals are continually exposed to and encouraged to adopt similar viewpoints. Over time, this can lead to a homogenized way of thinking, where diversity of thought is replaced by ideological conformity.

The loss of individuality can also manifest in educational settings, where students may feel hesitant to express opinions that challenge the prevailing ideology. In schools where woke principles are promoted, students may be wary of voicing dissenting views for fear of being ostracized or labeled. This atmosphere can create a form of intellectual self-censorship, where students avoid sharing their true beliefs or questioning prevailing narratives. Rather than fostering an environment of open dialogue and intellectual curiosity, such settings may inadvertently stifle creativity and curiosity, as students learn to stay within the bounds of what is deemed acceptable by their peers and instructors.

The long-term effect of this pressure to conform is a generation that is less resilient in the face of differing opinions and less equipped to engage in complex problem-solving. Creativity, innovation, and progress often thrive on the exchange of diverse ideas, yet woke culture’s emphasis on conformity can discourage young people from taking risks, thinking outside the box, or challenging established ideas. When young people feel compelled to follow a predetermined path in terms of values, beliefs, and identity, they lose the freedom to discover their own paths and contribute unique perspectives to society.

Conclusion

The potential dangers of woke ideology for future generations are significant. The psychological impact of internalizing social and political narratives from a young age can affect children’s mental health and self-perception. Division and polarization based on identity may foster an "us vs. them" mentality, undermining social cohesion and making it difficult for young people to engage in open dialogue. Furthermore, the loss of individuality and the pressure to conform stifle creativity and intellectual diversity, limiting young people’s ability to think independently and explore different perspectives.

As woke culture continues to shape society, it is essential to consider the potential impact on the next generation and to ensure that young people are encouraged to think for themselves. The values of empathy, open-mindedness, and intellectual freedom are crucial for building a society that embraces diversity not only in identity but in thought. In the next chapters, we will explore how parents, educators, and society as a whole can navigate these challenges to protect and support the mental and intellectual well-being of future generations.

A Call for Balance: Protecting the Innocence of Children

The Role of Parents

In today’s media-saturated environment, parents play a crucial role in guiding children through complex social issues and ideologies. As children increasingly encounter woke ideas in school, media, and online, parents can act as a counterbalance by providing tools for critical thinking and exposing them to a range of viewpoints. Parental guidance is essential in helping children navigate the world with an open, discerning mind, fostering the confidence to question what they hear and make informed decisions.

One of the first steps parents can take is to create a home environment that encourages open dialogue. Instead of shielding children from contentious topics, parents can offer age-appropriate discussions about current events, social issues, and cultural shifts. By being open to questions and providing honest, thoughtful answers, parents allow children to process and understand these issues without feeling pressured to adopt any particular stance. This approach nurtures curiosity, teaching children that it is okay to ask questions and seek clarity instead of simply accepting what they are told.

Parents can also help children recognize the importance of independent thinking by modeling it themselves. By openly sharing their own beliefs and reasoning without imposing them, parents demonstrate that it is possible to hold individual views while respecting others. This encourages children to think critically, compare perspectives, and form their own conclusions. Additionally, parents can provide alternative viewpoints or introduce children to authors, speakers, and materials that present different sides of an issue, broadening their understanding and helping them appreciate the diversity of thought.

Finally, teaching media literacy is essential in today’s digital age. Parents can guide children in evaluating sources, identifying bias, and understanding how algorithms and echo chambers can shape perceptions. For example, parents might discuss how social media platforms prioritize content that aligns with personal interests or political leanings, potentially limiting exposure to alternative viewpoints. By equipping children with these skills, parents empower them to navigate media thoughtfully, helping them develop an independent understanding of the world rather than passively absorbing what they see and hear.

The Power of Free Thought

The ability to think freely and critically is one of the most valuable skills a child can develop. Free thought enables children to explore a variety of ideas, question assumptions, and form their own beliefs based on evidence and personal experience rather than social pressure or conformity. In an era when woke ideology often dominates public discourse, promoting free thought is essential to fostering a generation that values individuality, creativity, and intellectual freedom.

Encouraging free thought begins with validating children’s curiosity and opinions, even when they differ from popular narratives. By reassuring children that they do not have to conform to a particular ideology or agree with everything they hear, parents and educators can help them build confidence in their own beliefs. Children who feel empowered to think for themselves are more likely to seek out new ideas and engage in meaningful dialogue with others, enriching their understanding of the world.

One of the challenges young people face today is the perception that certain ideas are “correct” or “acceptable” while others are inherently wrong. Free thought is about moving beyond this binary approach, recognizing that most issues are nuanced and that differing perspectives often contain valuable insights. By exposing children to diverse ideologies and philosophies, parents and educators can show them that the world is not a simple place of absolutes. This exposure helps children develop the analytical skills needed to navigate complex social issues with maturity, empathy, and a commitment to finding solutions rather than simply taking sides.

Moreover, free thought promotes resilience. When children are encouraged to think critically and defend their beliefs with logic and evidence, they learn to navigate disagreement and adversity. They understand that differing opinions do not invalidate their own beliefs and that disagreements can be productive. This approach fosters emotional intelligence, enabling children to engage in civil discourse and consider alternative viewpoints without feeling threatened or defensive. As these children grow, they are better prepared to adapt to an ever-changing world, grounded in the knowledge that their beliefs are the product of their own reasoning rather than social influence.

Educational Reforms

The educational system plays a significant role in shaping young minds, and as such, it carries a responsibility to approach sensitive topics in a balanced, non-partisan way. Schools should serve as environments where students feel safe exploring various perspectives, free from ideological pressure or fear of social reprisal. Ensuring a balanced education helps students develop a well-rounded understanding of the world, encouraging them to think critically, analyze multiple viewpoints, and form their own opinions.

One potential reform is the development of a curriculum that emphasizes critical thinking and media literacy. Rather than promoting specific social ideologies, schools could focus on teaching students how to evaluate information, recognize bias, and draw conclusions based on evidence. Media literacy programs, for example, would equip students with the skills to analyze news sources, understand how narratives are constructed, and identify persuasive tactics. Such programs empower students to engage with information critically, preparing them to navigate complex social issues without feeling pressured to accept any particular worldview.

Another approach to educational reform is the inclusion of diverse voices and perspectives in the classroom. Instead of framing certain beliefs as universally “correct” or “moral,” educators could encourage students to explore multiple sides of an issue, analyzing arguments from a variety of perspectives. For example, discussions on social issues like inequality, climate change, or gender roles could be approached in a way that highlights differing viewpoints, allowing students to weigh the merits of each argument. By exposing students to a broad spectrum of ideas, educators promote intellectual diversity, helping students understand that complex issues rarely have simple answers.

Parental involvement in education is another key factor. Schools can work with parents to ensure that students are receiving a balanced education, free from ideological bias. Parent-teacher associations, school boards, and community forums provide valuable opportunities for parents to voice concerns, discuss curriculum content, and advocate for a more balanced approach to education. When parents are engaged and informed, they can help ensure that schools prioritize critical thinking, factual knowledge, and intellectual diversity over ideological alignment.

Finally, fostering a classroom culture that values open dialogue and respectful debate can help students feel safe sharing their thoughts without fear of judgment. Teachers can set the tone by encouraging students to listen to each other, ask questions, and challenge ideas constructively. By modeling respectful discourse, educators show students that differing opinions are not only acceptable but valuable. This environment enables students to practice civil debate, develop empathy for differing perspectives, and learn to resolve conflicts through communication and mutual understanding.

Conclusion

As society grapples with the challenges of ideological influence on young minds, a balanced approach is essential. Parents, educators, and communities all play a role in protecting children’s innocence and fostering environments where they can explore a wide range of ideas. By promoting critical thinking, open dialogue, and intellectual diversity, we equip children with the skills they need to make informed choices, resist social pressure, and develop as independent thinkers.

Protecting the innocence of children does not mean sheltering them from the realities of the world, but rather providing them with the tools to understand and navigate those realities thoughtfully. A balanced approach encourages young people to question assumptions, seek evidence, and respect others' beliefs, helping them grow into compassionate, resilient individuals who value diversity of thought. In the following chapters, we will examine practical strategies for parents, educators, and communities to support children in developing these essential qualities, ensuring a future where free thought and individuality are celebrated.

Moving Forward: A Future Beyond the Woke Mind Virus

Building Resilience

In an era where young people are often influenced by a constant flow of opinions and ideological narratives, cultivating resilience is essential. Resilience provides youth with the inner strength to withstand ideological pressures, encouraging them to engage with the world thoughtfully and critically. By developing emotional intelligence, empathy, and open-mindedness, young people can grow into balanced, adaptable adults who can handle challenges and engage constructively with a diversity of ideas.

Resilience begins with self-awareness and emotional intelligence. When young people are taught to understand their emotions, they become less reactive and more reflective. They learn to process what they feel and respond thoughtfully rather than impulsively. Emotional intelligence is particularly valuable in a polarized world, as it enables young people to engage in respectful discourse without taking disagreements personally. Through empathy, they learn to appreciate where others are coming from, even if they don’t agree. When students are encouraged to place themselves in others’ shoes, they become more understanding, tolerant, and less prone to viewing differing opinions as threats. This sense of empathy becomes the foundation for constructive conversations and open-minded thinking.

Furthermore, resilience is nurtured when young people are encouraged to question assumptions and challenge ideas critically. This skill protects them from adopting views solely because they are popular or convenient. Teaching children to evaluate ideas based on evidence, logic, and personal reflection allows them to stand firm in their beliefs while remaining open to change. This approach to resilience doesn’t mean avoiding social or political issues but instead equipping young people to think independently and courageously in the face of ideological pressures.

Embracing Diversity of Thought

A healthy society thrives on a diversity of opinions, experiences, and perspectives. Embracing diversity of thought is not about promoting any one ideology, but rather about creating space for open dialogue, constructive debate, and mutual respect. When society respects diverse viewpoints, individuals feel free to express themselves without fear of backlash or rejection, and communities benefit from a richer pool of ideas and solutions.

For young people, embracing diversity of thought means recognizing that every individual brings a unique perspective to the table. It is about acknowledging that multiple viewpoints can coexist and that truth is often multi-faceted. Encouraging students to consider a variety of perspectives helps them recognize that many issues are complex and cannot be reduced to simple binaries. Schools, families, and communities can play a role in this by fostering environments where different viewpoints are welcomed, discussed, and respected.

One way to promote diversity of thought is through education that values critical thinking and evidence-based reasoning. When students are encouraged to examine multiple sides of an issue and analyze each on its merits, they develop a more nuanced understanding of the world. Teachers and parents can support this process by guiding children to ask questions, seek out various sources of information, and discuss what they learn with others. This approach teaches young people that they do not need to agree with every perspective they encounter, but they can still engage with those ideas respectfully and thoughtfully.

Embracing diversity of thought also requires a commitment to freedom of speech and expression. Young people should learn that voicing their beliefs, even when those beliefs differ from the mainstream, is valuable. Protecting freedom of expression creates a culture where individuals feel empowered to contribute their unique viewpoints, fostering innovation and strengthening social bonds. When young people are allowed to share their thoughts openly, they not only learn from others but also become more confident and secure in their own identities. In a society that values free expression, individuals are more likely to find common ground, resolve conflicts amicably, and work toward shared goals.

A New Generation of Leaders

As we look toward the future, it is vital to consider how the next generation of leaders can be equipped to navigate a world shaped by diverse ideologies, technological advances, and complex global challenges. Developing leaders who value individual freedom, critical thinking, and cooperation is essential to building a society that respects differences while working toward common goals.

To cultivate these future leaders, society must invest in education that emphasizes not just knowledge acquisition, but the development of critical thinking, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving skills. Leaders who value individual freedom recognize the importance of allowing people to make their own choices and take responsibility for their actions. Such leaders prioritize individual rights, respect freedom of speech, and advocate for a society where each person’s perspective is valued. They understand that diversity is not just about appearance but also about the richness of ideas and viewpoints, and they are prepared to protect these freedoms even in the face of pressure to conform.

In addition to critical thinking, effective leadership requires the ability to cooperate and build bridges across divides. Leaders of tomorrow will need to be skilled in collaboration, diplomacy, and conflict resolution. They will need to inspire others to work together toward shared goals, even when disagreements arise. Teaching young people the value of cooperation prepares them to bring people together, fostering an environment where dialogue is prioritized over division. When young people learn to see their peers as partners rather than opponents, they are more likely to approach leadership with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the collective well-being.

Equipping the next generation to lead in this way also means preparing them to be adaptable. In a rapidly changing world, leaders must be capable of reevaluating their beliefs and strategies in light of new information. Resilient leaders are willing to listen to feedback, adjust their perspectives, and adapt to shifting circumstances. This adaptability is particularly crucial in an age where technological, social, and economic changes occur at a fast pace. By encouraging young people to be both confident in their principles and open to growth, we prepare them to lead with both integrity and flexibility.

Conclusion

The future of society rests on the shoulders of a generation that can think freely, act with compassion, and lead with integrity. Moving beyond the influence of any single ideology, such as woke culture, requires a commitment to resilience, diversity of thought, and principled leadership. Parents, educators, and communities play an essential role in nurturing these qualities, ensuring that young people grow into adults who are prepared to face challenges with wisdom, empathy, and a commitment to freedom.

As we look ahead, the challenge is not to shield young people from the complexities of the world but to equip them with the skills to navigate those complexities with confidence and discernment. By fostering environments that prioritize open-mindedness, critical thinking, and mutual respect, we empower the next generation to make meaningful contributions to society. In doing so, we build a future that values the dignity of every individual, honors diverse perspectives, and creates space for thoughtful dialogue. This approach not only prepares young people to succeed but also lays the groundwork for a society that celebrates freedom, unity, and progress.

Conclusion: The Fight for a Balanced Society

Reflecting on Musk’s Statement

Elon Musk’s stark warning about the “woke mind virus” reflects a growing concern shared by many: the fear that ideologies, when left unchecked, may overwhelm independent thought and push society toward ideological conformity. Musk’s statement is not only a critique of current trends but also a call to action to protect the intellectual freedom and individuality of future generations. His message underscores the importance of creating a society where young people can develop their own perspectives rather than absorbing predetermined beliefs. Revisiting this challenge encourages us to ask ourselves: How can we protect future generations from becoming indoctrinated by one-sided ideologies? And how can we ensure that children grow up with the freedom to think for themselves?

The concern Musk raises points to a larger issue: the need for balanced perspectives in education, media, and public discourse. Ideologies—whether progressive or conservative—can provide valuable insights, but when they are allowed to dominate without counterbalance, they risk limiting critical thought. Musk’s warning thus serves as a reminder of the importance of fostering a society that values open dialogue, intellectual diversity, and tolerance for differing viewpoints. If society continues to favor ideological conformity over free inquiry, the potential for creativity, growth, and problem-solving diminishes. Protecting future generations from indoctrination is not about rejecting any particular ideology outright but about ensuring that no single viewpoint holds an unchecked monopoly on truth. Instead, by championing intellectual balance, we create an environment in which young people can freely explore a range of ideas and beliefs, arriving at their conclusions based on logic, evidence, and empathy.

A Vision for the Future

The vision for a balanced society goes beyond merely avoiding the pitfalls of ideological extremes. It envisions a future where children grow up in a culture that values diversity not only in appearance but in thought, where independent thinking is encouraged, and where compassion underpins social interaction. This vision requires that we prioritize a few key principles: intellectual freedom, open-mindedness, and a commitment to protecting the innocence and individuality of children.

First, intellectual freedom should be at the core of our society’s educational and cultural frameworks. This means providing young people with access to a wide range of perspectives and equipping them with the tools to analyze and question each. Encouraging intellectual freedom fosters an environment where creativity, innovation, and individuality thrive. In a world that values free thinking, children are encouraged to explore ideas without fear, cultivating the confidence to question what they encounter and the wisdom to distinguish fact from opinion. Such freedom is essential not only for personal growth but for the broader progress of society, as a diverse array of ideas and solutions is necessary to address complex issues.

Second, a balanced society must also prioritize open-mindedness. This quality allows individuals to engage constructively with perspectives that differ from their own, appreciating the unique insights that each viewpoint offers. Open-mindedness promotes empathy, reducing social division by encouraging people to see each other as allies rather than adversaries. When society embraces open-mindedness, disagreements become opportunities for learning rather than sources of conflict. For young people, this mindset prepares them to navigate a complex world with grace, curiosity, and humility. By fostering open-mindedness, we create a society where diverse perspectives are valued and where individuals are willing to engage with others, even when they disagree. In such a society, young people learn that true strength lies not in rigid adherence to ideology but in the ability to adapt, grow, and seek understanding across divides.

Finally, a balanced society recognizes the importance of compassion. This does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or shying away from contentious issues; rather, it means approaching these conversations with a sense of empathy and respect. Compassion allows people to consider the human impact of their beliefs and actions, grounding ideological debates in shared humanity rather than abstract principles. For children, compassion nurtures emotional resilience and social intelligence, helping them navigate interpersonal relationships with kindness and respect. As adults, they are more likely to approach leadership and decision-making with a sense of responsibility and a commitment to the common good. In a compassionate society, young people are encouraged to see beyond labels and categories, recognizing the worth and dignity of every individual.

A Vision for the Future: Moving Toward a Balanced Society

The path forward is neither simple nor straightforward, but the goal is clear: to create a society where young people grow up surrounded by diverse ideas, empowered to think independently, and guided by compassion. This vision calls for a collective commitment from parents, educators, leaders, and communities to protect intellectual freedom, champion diversity of thought, and model empathy and open-mindedness. By fostering these qualities, we create a foundation for a society that is resilient, dynamic, and unified—a society where individuals are free to think, explore, and collaborate without fear or restriction.

This future vision requires action. Parents can play an essential role by nurturing intellectual curiosity at home, allowing children to ask questions, explore new ideas, and form their own beliefs. Schools can focus on teaching critical thinking, media literacy, and respectful debate, creating classrooms where students feel safe exploring diverse viewpoints. Leaders in media, technology, and government can work to protect freedom of expression and discourage censorship, ensuring that public discourse remains open and vibrant.

Above all, achieving a balanced society demands a commitment to continual reflection and improvement. We must remain vigilant against ideological extremes, recognizing that freedom of thought is fragile and must be actively protected. In a society where diverse ideas are celebrated, individual freedom is respected, and compassion is prioritized, children are free to develop their unique perspectives and contribute positively to their communities.

Conclusion

In the fight for a balanced society, the stakes could not be higher. The “woke mind virus,” as Musk calls it, represents just one of many challenges that threaten intellectual freedom and individual thought. But with deliberate effort, a commitment to open-mindedness, and a dedication to fostering compassion, we can protect the innocence and independence of future generations.

This vision of a balanced society is not only about preserving freedom—it is about creating a world where young people are equipped to think critically, act with integrity, and embrace others with empathy. By embracing diversity of thought, we ensure that future generations can approach life’s complexities with curiosity and resilience, contributing to a society that values both individuality and unity. The journey toward this vision may be challenging, but it is a journey worth undertaking. For in building a balanced society, we secure a future where every individual has the freedom to think, to question, and to grow into the best version of themselves.

If you’re looking to understand the roots and implications of modern "woke" culture and its impact on free thought, I highly recommend reading Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. This insightful book dives deep into how the ideas that now shape social justice movements evolved from postmodern philosophy into a powerful, sometimes divisive force in today’s society. Pluckrose and Lindsay unpack the ideologies behind concepts like critical race theory, gender studies, and other activist frameworks that have made their way from academia into mainstream culture.

Cynical Theories is an eye-opening exploration for anyone concerned about how these ideologies influence our discourse, especially on sensitive topics such as race, gender, and identity. By breaking down complex theories into accessible explanations, the authors reveal how these ideas can sometimes discourage open debate and promote a single way of thinking.

Whether you agree or disagree, Cynical Theories provides a solid foundation for understanding these movements' backgrounds, intentions, and outcomes, allowing you to engage more thoughtfully in today’s cultural conversations. I recommend giving it a read to expand your perspective on how we approach social justice and to consider how we might advocate for a society that values both compassion and freedom of thought.

[faneth]

why are people tagging posts about eating disorders as 3d....... i wanted to look at 3d models and stuff...............

[the-woman-without-qualities]

I bought a used wacom tablet yesterday. I am so happy, because this is something I've wanted to have for several years. Also there are so many things that I wanted to draw in the past but I didn't and self-censored myself, because what if my parents go through my things and will see it.

Also cannot decide which blorbo will be given the honor of being the firstly drawn.

[interiorlulus]

Just drew something genuinely appealing to me in a sensual and fetishy way 🥂🥂🥂!

[mooncurses]

To add to the current trend of calling out the bullshit that Zionists spout, here's a collection of not so fun facts for my friends outside of Italy.

Some of you may have heard of how Ghali, one of the most famous singers in Italy who is of Tunisian descent, has been criticized by Israel's Ambassador to Italy Alon Bar, who accused him of spreading hate just because he called for a ceasefire in Gaza. Then to remind us all of how much of a grip on the balls of our entire nation Isr*el has, a letter recounting the October 7 happenings was read on air to "balance" things out politically speaking (as our useless Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister stated, whatever the fuck that means). On his part Ghali responded with confusion and honesty, simply saying that as an artist he's always going to use his platform to talk about what he thinks is important, besides the fact that he's always been supportive of the Palestinian people since he was a kid (thus reiterating how their struggle has NOT started on October 7). In no part he ever invoked anything but peace, and yet he sparked controversy.

Of course what this episode merely sheds light on is the shameful and blatant climate of selfcensorship that has taken over the Italian mainstream media. It's not even an isolated accident: just days prior another contestant of the Sanremo festival, Dargen D'Amico, was attacked by the mainstream press after he dared take a minute after his exhibition to remind everyone that with our silence we are all complicit in the deaths of countless children right now. Sure enough he was forced to apologize "for getting political" the very day after.

To protest this cowardly and disgusting attitude that has become the standard in Italy, a peaceful sit-in was organized today in Naples in front of RAI (the public TV network that broadcast the Sanremo festival and that is funded with tax payers' money). After the protestants tried to hang a pro-Palestine banner on the fence of the building, police brutality quickly ensued and several people got hurt after being hit in the head with batons (you can find a video of the whole scene unfolding here).

So the thing here is that you can see how the top brass of our government desperately wants us all to just be complacent in the killing of Palestinians at hands of Isr*el. Much like what happened with the bombing of Rafah carefully made to overlap with the Super Bowl, the pro Isr*el Western governements very much hope that our silence can be bought with as little as good old panem et circaenses. And I've gotta say, at least in the case of Italy, it's almost like in doing so they forget how we young people were taught about genocide in the first place.

They drilled an acute awareness of what genocide looks like into each of our heads throughout our whole grade school life. We would hold our yearly minute of silence for the victims of the Holocaust on Remembrance Day without fail, we would read "Se Questo È Un Uomo" by Primo Levi as early as eight grade and analyze it thoroughly. We would study Hannah Arendt's philosophy while focusing especially on her ideas about the banality of evil that she witnessed during the Nuremberg Trials. Most high schools organized mandatory conferences with Holocaust survivors as speakers and visits at the local synagogue, as well as extra curricular activities (I'm talking weeks long train trips to Dachau and other concentration camps while accompanied by members of survivors associations and historians) to further spread awareness about the horror of the Holocaust and make sure that we would never let it happen again, that we would take a strong stance against it if the situation ever called for it.

And now we are living through the first genocide that's being documented live for the whole world to see and yet apparently nobody can say nothing about it. The countries that so far have taken a strong stance against Isr*el are so few it's absurd considering the enormous amount of damning evidence of war crimes, human trafficking, and ultimately ethnic cleansing that Isr*el is carrying out. It's even more absurd if you think of how casual the Isr*elis are about all of this, perfectly knowing that as long as they are backed by the world's largest powers they are basically untouchable. The banality of evil for real.

But here's the thing. Isr*el is just a country run by the military and made up of brainwashed ultranationalist colonialists, who think it is their birth right to kill every last Palestinian and mock their suffering because that's what they've been told confidently their whole lives. They think that the suffering their people lived in the past made them beyond moral reproach today, that their right to self-defense can spill over to offense and nobody will ever blame them, and they are so convinced of this that they will respond to actual accusations of genocide and war crimes simply by saying "that's antisemitic" and moving on.

Even just recalling the words of Holocaust survivors who spoke up about genocide has stopped clicking in the heads of many people because they see everything pertaining to the Jews as exceptional in its political, social, and historical dimensions, even when it's not. To better explain what I mean let me summarize another fun fact from very recent happenings in Italy. This last January 27, on Remembrance Day, several protests by young people of Palestinian descent and other supporters were held in various cities to condemn Isr*el's actions in Palestine, despite having been forbidden for "security reasons" after some complaints of the Jewish community called for the protest to be rescheduled. Some of the words that were written on the banners that the protestors held are quotes of Primo Levi, a writer and Holocaust survivor who passed in 1987. The aftermath of the protests was basically centered around Noemi Di Segni, the president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities (UCEI), who said that the remembrance of Levi's words should be left to Jews, and then called for an end to the "verbal violence" against Jews that pro Palestine stances imply.

"Cease the fire of words against us is what we say to those who continue to accuse Israel of war crimes and genocide, with slogans based on nationality and faith, giving credence only to Hamas propaganda and giving new life to prejudices that we had hoped were extinct," Di Segni said. She also said that this kind of "Islamic suprematism" should look for quotes elsewhere, basically.

The funny thing here, however, is that the words that Levi originally spoke and that Di Segni and many other Zionists say have been "appropriated" by Palestinians were words that were never meant to be exclusively related to the Holocaust and the persecution of Jews specifically. All the contrary, they invite caution especially by reiterating that everyone needs to retain awareness of the horrors of genocide, because anyone (even Jews themselves in theory) could let such unspeakable things happen again if they let themselves forget. These are the words:

"Se comprendere è impossibile conoscere è necessario, perché ciò che è accaduto può ritornare, le coscienze possono nuovamente essere sedotte ed oscurate: anche le nostre". (trans: "If understanding is impossible then knowing is necessary, because what happened can come back, the consciences can again be seduced and obscured: even ours.")

This is important because to imply as Di Segni did that the Holocaust is a self contained episode in history, that words of warning against genocide in general can only be used in the context of a particular genocide that happened over 75 years ago, is the exact opposite of what survivors like Levi wanted the world to think.

The title Levi gave to what his English-language publishers called “Survival in Auschwitz” was “Se Questo È un Uomo” (“If This Is a Man”). The Nazis’ crime, he believed, was to treat the Jews as if they weren’t men—human beings. But the Jews’ suffering, he said, did not make them better people, or give them special rights. They had to observe the same moral standards as anyone else. Levi abhorred what we now call “exceptionalism.” This affected his views on Israel. He repeatedly condemned the Israelis’ treatment of the Palestinians. When, in 1982, the Israelis stood by as the Christian Phalangists massacred the Palestinians at Sabra and Shatila, he called for the resignation of Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin. “Everybody is somebody’s Jew,” he told a reporter, Filippo Gentiloni, from the Italian newspaper Il Manifesto, and he cited the abuse of Poland by the Russians and the Germans. At that point in the interview, printed on June 29, 1982, Gentiloni closed the Levi quote and added a sentence of his own: “And today Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis.”

Anyways, keep calling things as you see them. It may piss off some people, but it's the only way things can actually start to change in such a mud pool of empty politics and performative activism such as what we're witnessing in most Western countries.

[thedreadvampy]

31? you were typing “smex” on 2000s internet forums don’t preach about how censorship is new

Literally did not say it was new, you are projecting something I've repeatedly said in the reblogs of that post is not what I was talking about. My post is about the pervasive idea that you can (and should, and must) avoid discomfort by avoiding discomforting language, not about how TikTok is Ruining the Youth. I don't think it's generational but I do think it's frustrating.

having said which, while I had the same gripes a decade ago about people censoring slurs while using them AS SLURS as if that made a difference, I think you are somewhat misled about the vibes of 2000s forums cause the only place where the posting culture included censoring words like sex, kill, suicide or fuck were like. Sites for literal children like Neopets or Gaia Online which had strict wordblockers.

We said "smexy" for the same reason we said "glomp XD" or "hecking doggo" or "ermergurd" - because we were cringe teens who were lol randum and found it funny to misspell words. Now the experience of being online was a lot more diverse in the era of forums and blogs than in the 3 Big Websites era of the internet we're in now, so I'm not gonna say with absolute authority that nobody was censoring themselves outside of sites designed for under-14s, or that none of that language might have its origin in selfcensorship, but I can 100% promise you that unless I was dealing with a site explicitly made for kids I personally did not worry about censoring rude words on forums in the 2000s, I used all the ones I knew 🤷‍♀️

[thegreenbisamurai]

*selfcensorshiping*

babe wake up! new booktok nsfw censorship term just dropped

[newswireml]

Self-Censorship on College Campuses Is Getting Worse#SelfCensorship #College #Campuses #Worse

When free speech and open expression are discussed in the context of higher education, the focus has typically been on undergraduates and their ability to engage in discourse and debate. While far too many students regularly report self-censoring and express concern over their reputation, many faculty, too, spend their time on campus working in fear, and worry about asking questions and sharing…

[randomagus]

The loaded gun Collage: paper on paper #art #collage #flowers #collageartwork #birds #maleart #maleartist #randomagus #cutandpaste #queer #vintage #collageart #cutandpaste #analog #heart #censor #censorship #selfcensorship #changes #decisions #emilydickinson https://www.instagram.com/p/B_WtTGLKkg4/?igshid=306z627vhndw

[viberevstudios]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by They Call Me Mr. ViBE (@viberevstudios)

#TRIGGERWARNING: Inspired by Bill Gates' declaration calling for mandatory COVID-19 (CoronaVirus); Joe and Jason discuss whether or not #vaccinations are harmful to the human body especially in relation to an #infant's developing body. Keep an open mind as we jump down a vaccine skeptic's rabbit hole. #Quarantine life continues! #Gentlemen can you relate? The #LastoftheNiceGuys #Podcast NOW PLAYING on your favorite #podcasting app or listen here - https://episodes.castos.com/viberevstudios/Last-of-the-Nice-Guys-17.mp3 #NiceGuys #SelfCensorship #Censorship #BillGates #vaccinations #antivax #antivaxxer #COVID19 #CoronaVirus #CoronaVirusVaccine #CoronaVirusVaccination #DownTheRabbitHole #videoediting #VideoOfTheDay #instavideo #videoeditor (at Vibe_Revelation Studio(s)) https://www.instagram.com/p/CAoZbq7j4r3/?igshid=tcnpx52bj88v

[finndiseicla]

sorry it's a photoshop

The Hays code earned almost all of the hate it received and all of protests it had inspired inside and out of the movie industry over the years. This young man in 1987 wasn't protesting a set of Hollywood selfcensorship codes that had been defunct since 1966.

He was protesting for his right and the rights of all consenting adults in the state of Maryland to fuck, suck, and get freaky.

“I VIOLATE ARTICLE 27, SEC. 553-4 OF THE MARYLAND ANNOTATED CODE SAFELY, OFTEN, AND EXTREMELY WELL,” Second National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, Washington, D.C., October 11, 1987. Photo © Exakta.

Sections 553 and 554 of Article 27 of the Maryland Code prohibited sodomy (punishable with a sentence of “not less than one year nor more than ten years”), oral sex, and “any other unnatural or perverted sexual practice with any other person.”

via @lgbt_history

T shirt that says I VIOLATE THE HAYS CODE

[alialorae]

#fury #frustration #selfcensorship #harlanellison #ihavenomouthandimustscream

[omlekha]

[MOFATEOAGD C6 cultural capital]

[weelectronicstudentreviewstuff]

Iqbal Khan feels OTT self-censorship shouldn’t come at cost of creative freedom Image Source : INSTAGRAM/IQBALKHAN Iqbal Khan feels OTT self-censorship shouldn't come at cost of creative freedom…

[bobafett08070-blog]

Apologies for being gone so long. Life can be hectic. Not the one I wanted to post, but censorship sucks. Happy Thursday!! #selfcensorship #froghallowstudios #lace #photoshoot #TBT #blueandpurplehairallgone #inked #girlswithtattoos #altmodel #modeleverywhere #alternativemodel #picoftheday #browneyedgirl Photographer: @synthesisphotollc

[vinyldinosaur]

#cephalopod #quote #tonyhawk #cephalopodconspiracy #consumertechnology #poemlet #peteye #wikiart #grepolage #selfmade #gelato #selfcensorship #parasanity #retrofuturism https://www.instagram.com/p/B8V-FXyoUOo/?igshid=sfwapu1gl2yf