FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Too "woke"?
Too "woke"?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree 100% but no doubt we will end up needing the popcorn for this thread soon 🤣...." I'll buy, salty or sweet?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I agree 100% but no doubt we will end up needing the popcorn for this thread soon 🤣.... I'll buy, salty or sweet? "Sweet for me 🤤🤤 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I totally agree, I'm not fussy about anyones race, sexual persuasion, religious views, political views etc etc... I've got friends who are very left wing, friends who are very right wing, plenty of gay friends, and so forth, but the interesting thing is, is doesn't make a scrap of difference to our friendships, and when I spend time with my friends, sexual, political and religious views rarely come up in conversation, and those friendships are all the better for it...... I just wish it was the same online, where that sort of boring tedious shit is spouted by the bucket load. " This 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Woke is the new name for "giving a shit about others". A word that those on the right throw around at people because they care more about other human life than their local football club, cocaine, Stella and Tommy Robinson... " Yeah, we know... Can it go too far is the question? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. " The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced." Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! " Yeah, think you're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I said Im liberal, you just mentioned liberalist movements that I agree with 🤷♂️ Again, the question is, can "wokeness" - not liberalism - go too far? " Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? " My original post has examples on how wokeness discriminates and creates social injustice - do you disagree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although a 70s kid I'm with the OP I've always been a live and let live type person however I have to speak out against some of the sexuality/gender identity madness because I have beef in the game' I'm in some LGBT Reddit groups and I really find myself having to resist posting in some of the discissions where it's kids with clearly issues beyond sexuality or gender identity, and all people do is affirm them when they should be, in a very kind and understanding way suggesting they seek help, I really know how they feel as I had psychological issues as a kid and ended being referred to a special boarding school for kids with issues, I enjoyed the school and am really grateful for the opportunity, I still ended up a gay kid but I was popular and had friends, my real sexuality issues began when I left school, mainly because I struggled to handle being gay in the real world and just wanted to be like everyone else. Anyway that's a very long story for another day, point is I feel qualified to comment in these groups with some tough love but daren't for fear of the backlash." Thanks for your insight - Do you think if you were going through it all today instead of back in the day, your feelings may have been affirmed and you could've ended up somewhere different to where you are now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think that it’s easy to take the right wing definition of woke as being about silencing people, whereas I’ve always seen it used as a term to be aware and open. It’s too often used as a pejorative in terms of representation by the right wing. Often language moves and shifts according to the way that it’s used. It requires critical thinking to recognise how and why people are using it, how they want it perceived and by whom. Woke still means the same thing, it’s only when used as a negative that it’s pointed towards something else. Sadly too much internet and SM has a polarising influence on people " Totally agree. The right uses "woke' the same way the left uses "Nazi". It loses its impact and meaning when you just chuck it at everyone with an opposing view | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Woke is the new name for "giving a shit about others". A word that those on the right throw around at people because they care more about other human life than their local football club, cocaine, Stella and Tommy Robinson... And this silliness helps who exactly? " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! " How do you maintain equality of outcome without an overly heavy handed beaurocracy that fundamentally would have to take away others freedom of choice to achieve? You really went for the lowest hanging fruit to attack OP when he fundamentally agrees with you, your inability to see what is being said IS the problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! How do you maintain equality of outcome without an overly heavy handed beaurocracy that fundamentally would have to take away others freedom of choice to achieve? You really went for the lowest hanging fruit to attack OP when he fundamentally agrees with you, your inability to see what is being said IS the problem " 🎯 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for your insight - Do you think if you were going through it all today instead of back in the day, your feelings may have been affirmed and you could've ended up somewhere different to where you are now? " I think there seems to an obsession for putting everyone somewhere on the spectrum even to the point where apparently straight Queers are a thing. As for your question on affirmation, it seems just being gay and happy is not enough for the activists, they'd rather have unhappy and going through gender reassignment treatment. Most of what I went through as a young adult was due to societal norms, the 1970s and 80s were not a good time to be gay | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has it started yet 🤣🍿" Should've made it a large  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm so lucky I'm a socialist and not a liberal
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion. "Im not talking about "The left" in general though, im specifically talking about wokeness going to far. Of course general left leaning people don't fall under that, I assumed my post clarified that | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"OP, Your statement seems perfectly logical and from a position of understanding. Unfortunately some forms of mental illness are ignored and not treated as they should. If someone with anorexia presented themselves as fat to you , because that's how they see themselves would you say yes, you are too fat, you should definitely think about what you are eating? I understand that this is a complicated issue and not really comprehensible, and certainly difficult to discuss, because feelings come into it. Everyone has the right to feel offended, but no one can control the right to offend as this is subjective. Offending someone or hurting their feelings isn't that big of a deal , like c'mon get over it . Resilience builds character, not rewarding blind obedience and acquiescence. Be unreasonable, it changes things. " I totally agree with you though and is actually a very good example of the point I'm trying to make. Of course that person's illness should be addressed and not affirmed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm so lucky I'm a socialist and not a liberal
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion.
Im not talking about "The left" in general though, im specifically talking about wokeness going to far. Of course general left leaning people don't fall under that, I assumed my post clarified that"Ah but you see, that would mean actually reading what you wrote, its so much easier to disagree with someone if you pretend they are saying things they arent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Thanks for your insight - Do you think if you were going through it all today instead of back in the day, your feelings may have been affirmed and you could've ended up somewhere different to where you are now? I think there seems to an obsession for putting everyone somewhere on the spectrum even to the point where apparently straight Queers are a thing. As for your question on affirmation, it seems just being gay and happy is not enough for the activists, they'd rather have unhappy and going through gender reassignment treatment. Most of what I went through as a young adult was due to societal norms, the 1970s and 80s were not a good time to be gay " I have no personal experience of that but can totally see how that could be problematic. That theoretical wee boy who would rather play with dolls than cars then gets branded feminine and it all spirals from there. When if left alone, could just grow up to be a gay man. Or, a straight man who likes dolls 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm so lucky I'm a socialist and not a liberal
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion.
Im not talking about "The left" in general though, im specifically talking about wokeness going to far. Of course general left leaning people don't fall under that, I assumed my post clarified that
Ah but you see, that would mean actually reading what you wrote, its so much easier to disagree with someone if you pretend they are saying things they arent "My apologies, I made an assumption that by using the terms "liberalism" and "liberal" in your initial post, OP, you were referring to people on the left, but I appreciate it can sit in the middle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm so lucky I'm a socialist and not a liberal
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion.
Im not talking about "The left" in general though, im specifically talking about wokeness going to far. Of course general left leaning people don't fall under that, I assumed my post clarified that
Ah but you see, that would mean actually reading what you wrote, its so much easier to disagree with someone if you pretend they are saying things they arent "🤣🤣👌 "Now don't go hearing what Im not saying, but.." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a 90's kid, I am the epitome of "each to their own, aslong as it doesn't impede others". I don't judge anyone by their ethnicity, sexuality or lifestyle choices. True, traditional liberalism. Today's liberalism seems to want to focus on these traits and instead of just accepting them as equal, morph them into something more; Ethnicity - Rather than treating everyone the same and everyone having the same opportunities, people from certain backgrounds are given priority in DEI roles. Positive discrimination if you will. Sexuality - Rather than being accepting of everyone's sexual preferences, those who aren't attracted to a partiular group are branded "phobic" rather than acknowledging its just their personal preference. Lifestyle - Rather than acknowledging a wee boy choosing to play with dolls over a cars or a wee girl choosing to play in the mud over playing with make up is now seen as a boy showing feminine traits or a girl showing masculine traits, rather than what it is - a child playing with something they enjoy. It has nothing to do with identity. I can think of many other examples, but just wondering if anyone agrees, is there such a thing as too "woke" or Liberal? Has the spectrum shifted significantly? I feel like my genuinely, truly open views from the 90s are now seen as some crazy right wing stance but then again, we are only ever fed the stuff from both extremes, I hope the central silent majority is still just that. Central." This could have gone a number of ways. Fair play to air it out on a public forum and I have to say, totally in agreement with you. There is still time to get the 🍿 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm so lucky I'm a socialist and not a liberal
There are a lot of generalisations in your initial post, OP, that, in my experience, are often shared by those *about* the left, not by the left themselves. I'd just echo that it's simply about inclusivity and compassion.
Im not talking about "The left" in general though, im specifically talking about wokeness going to far. Of course general left leaning people don't fall under that, I assumed my post clarified that
Ah but you see, that would mean actually reading what you wrote, its so much easier to disagree with someone if you pretend they are saying things they arent
My apologies, I made an assumption that by using the terms "liberalism" and "liberal" in your initial post, OP, you were referring to people on the left, but I appreciate it can sit in the middle."Not a problem, no need to apologise. Thanks for engaging | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"...Lifestyle - Rather than acknowledging a wee boy choosing to play with dolls over a cars or a wee girl choosing to play in the mud over playing with make up is now seen as a boy showing feminine traits or a girl showing masculine traits, rather than what it is - a child playing with something they enjoy. It has nothing to do with identity." I don't think I've come across 'woke' people who react this way to children playing. It definitely seems more like something the crowd most likely to call people snowflakes would be focused on. But, divide and conquer has always been the way. I know plenty of people with wildly different ideals than my own. As long as they're not actively trying to harm other people it doesn't really matter. I don't think someone is transphobic if they don't want to have sex with a trans person. I do think they are if they agree with reducing the rights and freedoms of trans people below that of those born in a body that's right for them 💜 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"W I don't think the human race is biologically designed to be eternally peaceful. There is a survival and conquer instinct in our dna. Where there is a need for order and organisation there will always be those who seek to dominate. " The instinct to dominate is not just a human trait, many animal species do this, we just have the technology to do it with truly devastating effect, for example, baboon troops fight rival troops and if a male lion defeats the current alfa male of the pride, he will kill all the cubs so all the new cubs have his genes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think I've come across 'woke' people who react this way to children playing. It definitely seems more like something the crowd most likely to call people snowflakes would be focused on." The "Genderbread person" version 4 model for teaching kids about gender identity says the Expression section includes actions, clothing and demeanor as gender identity. So if the wee boy in my example liked to wear a pink t-shirt and play with dolls. According to them, he's feminine. Utter nonsense. Its a colour and a toy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think I've come across 'woke' people who react this way to children playing. It definitely seems more like something the crowd most likely to call people snowflakes would be focused on. The "Genderbread person" version 4 model for teaching kids about gender identity says the Expression section includes actions, clothing and demeanor as gender identity. So if the wee boy in my example liked to wear a pink t-shirt and play with dolls. According to them, he's feminine. Utter nonsense. Its a colour and a toy." The assignment of masculine or feminine to these things is generally silly. But extremists exist in all things. It isn't a sentiment I've never seen personally expressed outside of parents worrying that playing with girl things will make their child gay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a 90's kid, I am the epitome of "each to their own, aslong as it doesn't impede others". I don't judge anyone by their ethnicity, sexuality or lifestyle choices. True, traditional liberalism. Today's liberalism seems to want to focus on these traits and instead of just accepting them as equal, morph them into something more; Ethnicity - Rather than treating everyone the same and everyone having the same opportunities, people from certain backgrounds are given priority in DEI roles. Positive discrimination if you will. Sexuality - Rather than being accepting of everyone's sexual preferences, those who aren't attracted to a partiular group are branded "phobic" rather than acknowledging its just their personal preference. Lifestyle - Rather than acknowledging a wee boy choosing to play with dolls over a cars or a wee girl choosing to play in the mud over playing with make up is now seen as a boy showing feminine traits or a girl showing masculine traits, rather than what it is - a child playing with something they enjoy. It has nothing to do with identity. I can think of many other examples, but just wondering if anyone agrees, is there such a thing as too "woke" or Liberal? Has the spectrum shifted significantly? I feel like my genuinely, truly open views from the 90s are now seen as some crazy right wing stance but then again, we are only ever fed the stuff from both extremes, I hope the central silent majority is still just that. Central." I'd say that people who use the term "woke" as a derogatory term or as an insult, are what is wrong in this country right at this moment in time. Mostly andry middle aged white men, as Gary would say. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly." But those two things are not always mutually exclusive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The assignment of masculine or feminine to these things is generally silly. But extremists exist in all things. It isn't a sentiment I've never seen personally expressed outside of parents worrying that playing with girl things will make their child gay." Extremists?  its literally being taught in UK schools.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly." Aye, nae bother, great contribution. Try again once you've told your wife about your profile 🙄 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly." Perfect! 👍👍👍 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly." I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1) "You're woke, I'm not, I'll fight for your right to be wrong."" This is what I think of when someone says liberal. I know it is old fashioned and from a very different time but this is what creates proper diversity of thought. The modern bastardisation of the word liberal makes absolutely no sense to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you" Who's they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. Aye, nae bother, great contribution. Try again once you've told your wife about your profile 🙄" Ah getting personal now, just what you and this thread needs. Always happens on this topic  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you" I don't label everyone that disagrees with me an arsehole. However, everyone I've encountered who uses "woke" as an insult generally is. Simple. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. But those two things are not always mutually exclusive. " Indeed, it's tongue in cheek of course, taking the piss out of people who think using the term to attack people is clever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. Aye, nae bother, great contribution. Try again once you've told your wife about your profile 🙄 Ah getting personal now, just what you and this thread needs. Always happens on this topic "Nope. You made it personal by inferring that not being woke makes you an arsehole in an otherwise pretty well structured debate. It was all going swimmingly. I'd much rather discuss the nuances and intricacies of the points I've made. I was just demonstrating that I can stoop to your level if necessary. Rather not though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? " Ideologically possessed leftists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you I don't label everyone that disagrees with me an arsehole. However, everyone I've encountered who uses "woke" as an insult generally is. Simple." No you wrote you are woke because you are not an arsehole, thereby suggesting those who aren't woke are arseholes. You said nothing about people using it as a pejorative | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. Aye, nae bother, great contribution. Try again once you've told your wife about your profile 🙄 Ah getting personal now, just what you and this thread needs. Always happens on this topic
Nope. You made it personal by inferring that not being woke makes you an arsehole in an otherwise pretty well structured debate. It was all going swimmingly. I'd much rather discuss the nuances and intricacies of the points I've made. I was just demonstrating that I can stoop to your level if necessary. Rather not though."It wasn't personal to anyone in this thread at all, it's a comedy slogan from a tshirt from the Daily Mash.... The rest is just word soup. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ideologically possessed leftists. " ....and we get there eventually. Time to leave you to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? Ideologically possessed leftists. " Are you a flag shagger? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ideologically possessed leftists. ....and we get there eventually. Time to leave you to it." Some mothers do ave em! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"[Removed by poster at 07/10/25 16:38:01]" I didn't assume anything. I just asked...😎 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? Ideologically possessed leftists. Are you a flag shagger?" Not at all, but there we go, I disagree with a quite extreme view and therefore I must be a right wing flag shagger, its the only logical way anyone could disagree right? Bet you felt all good writing that one bud | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ideologically possessed leftists. ....and we get there eventually. Time to leave you to it." Time to levitate away there pal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? Ideologically possessed leftists. Are you a flag shagger? Not at all, but there we go, I disagree with a quite extreme view and therefore I must be a right wing flag shagger, its the only logical way anyone could disagree right? Bet you felt all good writing that one bud" I asked you a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. And for the record, I didnt feel anything whilst asking the question. Enjoy your day. 🕺🕺 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Phobia - nobody accuses a male heterosexual of homophobia just because they aren't sexually attracted to other males. But if you disrespect someone because of their sexual identity then what should it be called? Gender roles - who cares? Many conservatives care because they generally think biological males should be masculine and biological females should be feminine. " Actually in the crazy world of the LGBTQI+ so called Liberals accusing people of phobia because they are not attracted to a specific group is common, it's mainly calling gay or lesbian people transphobic because they are not attracted to trans people. As for your gender roles comment again so called Liberals also love putting people in boxes, they are also obsessed with transitioning people, as an example in an introduction post in an LGBT group on Reddit I mentioned that I was an effeminate gay man, I got a reply from one person asking if I'd thought about transitioning and they were being serious | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? Ideologically possessed leftists. Are you a flag shagger? Not at all, but there we go, I disagree with a quite extreme view and therefore I must be a right wing flag shagger, its the only logical way anyone could disagree right? Bet you felt all good writing that one bud I asked you a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. And for the record, I didnt feel anything whilst asking the question. Enjoy your day. 🕺🕺" No you inferred with your question, which is ironic given that is what the right wingers you dislike so much are usually guilty of, making inferences under the guise of asking questions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also like the phrase; "I'm woke because I'm not an arsehole" That sums it up perfectly. I do love how they alwasy turn up and instantly start levitating above the rest of us, you dont subscribe to my ideology, you must be an arsehole, life really is simple when you can label everyone who disagrees with you an arsehole. Its akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going nah nah nah I cant hear you Who's they? Ideologically possessed leftists. Are you a flag shagger? Not at all, but there we go, I disagree with a quite extreme view and therefore I must be a right wing flag shagger, its the only logical way anyone could disagree right? Bet you felt all good writing that one bud I asked you a question, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. And for the record, I didnt feel anything whilst asking the question. Enjoy your day. 🕺🕺 No you inferred with your question, which is ironic given that is what the right wingers you dislike so much are usually guilty of, making inferences under the guise of asking questions " As I said, enjoy your day. Xx | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually in the crazy world of the LGBTQI+ so called Liberals accusing people of phobia because they are not attracted to a specific group is common, it's mainly calling gay or lesbian people transphobic because they are not attracted to trans people." I made a comment on another thread about some people talking garbage from a position of anger and frustration. But I don't think this position is common and I certainly don't think it applies to liberals in general. The concept of consent is central to most liberal thinking about sexual activity. "As for your gender roles comment again so called Liberals also love putting people in boxes, they are also obsessed with transitioning people, as an example in an introduction post in an LGBT group on Reddit I mentioned that I was an effeminate gay man, I got a reply from one person asking if I'd thought about transitioning and they were being serious" It sounds like you are putting all liberal in a box based on one person asking you a question. I don't think many liberals believe that gay men should become trans women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Actually in the crazy world of the LGBTQI+ so called Liberals accusing people of phobia because they are not attracted to a specific group is common, it's mainly calling gay or lesbian people transphobic because they are not attracted to trans people. I made a comment on another thread about some people talking garbage from a position of anger and frustration. But I don't think this position is common and I certainly don't think it applies to liberals in general. The concept of consent is central to most liberal thinking about sexual activity. As for your gender roles comment again so called Liberals also love putting people in boxes, they are also obsessed with transitioning people, as an example in an introduction post in an LGBT group on Reddit I mentioned that I was an effeminate gay man, I got a reply from one person asking if I'd thought about transitioning and they were being serious It sounds like you are putting all liberal in a box based on one person asking you a question. I don't think many liberals believe that gay men should become trans women." Missed the fact that I said "So called Liberals" didn't We? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missed the fact that I said "So called Liberals" didn't We?" The term "so-called liberals" is generally used by conservatives as an insult against liberals who they think are a bit too uppity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missed the fact that I said "So called Liberals" didn't We? The term "so-called liberals" is generally used by conservatives as an insult against liberals who they think are a bit too uppity." I can assure you I'm not a Conservative, that doesn't mean I can't call out insanity when I come across it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missed the fact that I said "So called Liberals" didn't We? The term "so-called liberals" is generally used by conservatives as an insult against liberals who they think are a bit too uppity. I can assure you I'm not a Conservative, that doesn't mean I can't call out insanity when I come across it." I assure you now pal, the fella you are referring to is actually quite a considered chap, I really dont think he was trying to be reductive to your point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Missed the fact that I said "So called Liberals" didn't We? The term "so-called liberals" is generally used by conservatives as an insult against liberals who they think are a bit too uppity." The problem is the confusion between the terms "progressives" and "liberals". Unfortunately, many progressives call themselves liberals and many right wingers use these term interchangeably. But progressivism and liberalism are two different things. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The term "so-called liberals" is generally used by conservatives as an insult against liberals who they think are a bit too uppity." You should be careful when using the word 'uppity'. It has ... connotations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is the confusion between the terms "progressives" and "liberals". Unfortunately, many progressives call themselves liberals and many right wingers use these term interchangeably. But progressivism and liberalism are two different things." Yes, the term liberal has multiple meanings but many people use the US context where there's considered to be a straight liberal/conservative divide. So in this context there's a symmetry of meaning between liberal/left/progressive and conservative/right/reactionary. With each of the three term in each pair being "stronger". So liberal is a general philosophical term. left is usually more political and progressive is a movement for change. Likewise conservative is philosophical, right is political and reactionary is a movement to restore the past. Although it's pretty confused terminology. The above are just my quick off the cuff interpretations. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. " It's a generic insult when you have a different opinion to someone else ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. It's a generic insult when you have a different opinion to someone else ?" like being called a racist. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. It's a generic insult when you have a different opinion to someone else ?" Nah, you're getting mixed up with "Nazi" or "Fascist" there mate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Woke propaganda appeals to emotions which is why it's so effective amongst women and weak men." That actually made me laugh It is more accurate to say that political campaigns across the entire spectrum rely on emotion, but the political right often relies on emotions that lead voters to act against their own financial interests. The most potent form of political mobilization comes from emotions like **fear, resentment, and a sense of cultural grievance.** Populist parties often stoke these emotions by focusing on identity issues and cultural wars. This is why you see many individuals vote for parties whose economic policies (such as tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to public services) directly and negatively impact their personal finances. The emotional satisfaction of feeling 'heard' on a cultural issue outweighs the logical, factual assessment of their economic well-being. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x" I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school." Examples, as this sounds such a stretch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school. Examples, as this sounds such a stretch. " The rejection of established facts in favor of political comfort provides clear examples. One is the rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change in favor of scientifically illiterate political talking points. This is a deliberate choice to ignore facts that interfere with a preferred economic or political narrative. A strong linguistic example is the intentional dismissal of terms like 'systemic' or 'structural' when discussing inequality. These are well-established terms used in sociology, law, and economics to analyze persistent problems, but they are frequently and incorrectly rejected as 'woke jargon.' This shows a refusal to use the necessary vocabulary to even discuss complex modern problems. Ignoring scientifically and academically established concepts demonstrates a loyalty to simplistic political slogans over the required level of intellectual reality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school." and the left leaves theirs at pre school x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That actually made me laugh It is more accurate to say that political campaigns across the entire spectrum rely on emotion, but the political right often relies on emotions that lead voters to act against their own financial interests. The most potent form of political mobilization comes from emotions like **fear, resentment, and a sense of cultural grievance.** Populist parties often stoke these emotions by focusing on identity issues and cultural wars. This is why you see many individuals vote for parties whose economic policies (such as tax cuts for the wealthy and cuts to public services) directly and negatively impact their personal finances. The emotional satisfaction of feeling 'heard' on a cultural issue outweighs the logical, factual assessment of their economic well-being." I think most populist right-wing polititians do genuinely believe in the identity and cultural warfare ideas they push, but as you imply it's mostly a convenient tool to get sufficient power to turn public services into private businesses and to reduce income tax, capital gains tax and inheritance tax and long-term to hopefully entirely replace them with consumption tax (eg VAT and duties) and a flat-rate poll tax. That's a big part of MAGA's agenda and Reform's too - hence the promise of a £90 billion per year cut in their last manifesto. The Tories are trying to catch up with promises of £47 billion per year in cuts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school.and the left leaves theirs at pre school x " The level of education is irrelevant. The core distinction remains the same: one side relies on verifiable data and facts that require complex understanding, and the other relies on emotionally satisfying slogans that are easy to repeat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think 'woke' goes to far when you are expected to ignore scientific reality and linguistic norms so as to avoid upsetting the feelings of any particular group. Thats too 'woke' i believe. Facts trump feelings, not matter how upsetting that may be for some people, Mrs x I completely agree. Although I find it is more often the right that leaves their scientific and literary reality behind in middle school. Examples, as this sounds such a stretch. The rejection of established facts in favor of political comfort provides clear examples. One is the rejection of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change in favor of scientifically illiterate political talking points. This is a deliberate choice to ignore facts that interfere with a preferred economic or political narrative. A strong linguistic example is the intentional dismissal of terms like 'systemic' or 'structural' when discussing inequality. These are well-established terms used in sociology, law, and economics to analyze persistent problems, but they are frequently and incorrectly rejected as 'woke jargon.' This shows a refusal to use the necessary vocabulary to even discuss complex modern problems. Ignoring scientifically and academically established concepts demonstrates a loyalty to simplistic political slogans over the required level of intellectual reality." This is a pure LLM driven reply.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is a pure LLM driven reply.... " If you say so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a pure LLM driven reply...." We need to define a new logical fallacy - avoiding an argument by claiming it's a result of large language model AI. I propose calllng it Mr Woolly's fallacy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is a pure LLM driven reply.... If you say so" I know it is, however I have no problem with people using AI as I stop engaging. Disengaging is happening a lot in this part of the forum, which is a shame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a pure LLM driven reply.... We need to define a new logical fallacy - avoiding an argument by claiming it's a result of large language model AI. I propose calllng it Mr Woolly's fallacy. " You also use AI all the time, and you must see the response is driven by AI, it wasn't even answering the question. I always wondered what was meant by AI being a danger, I know exactly how now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You also use AI all the time, and you must see the response is driven by AI, it wasn't even answering the question. I always wondered what was meant by AI being a danger, I know exactly how now." I don't use AI all the time, it's just that you don't seem to comprehend that someone of my intellect and level of rhetorical skill might exist. The reply did address your question. If someone does use AI to produce text that expresses what they want to say it's little different to you or I relying on something we've read in a book. Your argument is a fallacy because you don't address the actual argument but seek to avoid it by using a lame excuse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You also use AI all the time, and you must see the response is driven by AI, it wasn't even answering the question. I always wondered what was meant by AI being a danger, I know exactly how now. " If you say so | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You also use AI all the time, and you must see the response is driven by AI, it wasn't even answering the question. I always wondered what was meant by AI being a danger, I know exactly how now. I don't use AI all the time, it's just that you don't seem to comprehend that someone of my intellect and level of rhetorical skill might exist. The reply did address your question. If someone does use AI to produce text that expresses what they want to say it's little different to you or I relying on something we've read in a book. Your argument is a fallacy because you don't address the actual argument but seek to avoid it by using a lame excuse. " Self proclaimed intellectual and being unconsciously unaware, is something I'm not going to argue against.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You also use AI all the time, and you must see the response is driven by AI, it wasn't even answering the question. I always wondered what was meant by AI being a danger, I know exactly how now. If you say so"  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a pure LLM driven reply.... We need to define a new logical fallacy - avoiding an argument by claiming it's a result of large language model AI. I propose calllng it Mr Woolly's fallacy. " Ha, yes — exactly that. I’m running on fumes right now, but that’s basically spot on. It’s just the latest flavour of ad hominem, maybe even a genetic fallacy if you squint at it. Either way, it’s a neat way to sum up that whole “ignore the point, accuse the poster of being an AI” routine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a pure LLM driven reply.... We need to define a new logical fallacy - avoiding an argument by claiming it's a result of large language model AI. I propose calllng it Mr Woolly's fallacy. Ha, yes — exactly that. I’m running on fumes right now, but that’s basically spot on. It’s just the latest flavour of ad hominem, maybe even a genetic fallacy if you squint at it. Either way, it’s a neat way to sum up that whole “ignore the point, accuse the poster of being an AI” routine." I rest my case..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is a pure LLM driven reply.... We need to define a new logical fallacy - avoiding an argument by claiming it's a result of large language model AI. I propose calllng it Mr Woolly's fallacy. Ha, yes — exactly that. I’m running on fumes right now, but that’s basically spot on. It’s just the latest flavour of ad hominem, maybe even a genetic fallacy if you squint at it. Either way, it’s a neat way to sum up that whole “ignore the point, accuse the poster of being an AI” routine. I rest my case.. "I thought you were disengaging? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is more accurate to say that political campaigns across the entire spectrum rely on emotion, but the political right often relies on emotions that lead voters to act against their own financial interests. The most potent form of political mobilization comes from emotions like **fear, resentment, and a sense of cultural grievance.** Populist parties often stoke these emotions by focusing on identity issues and cultural wars." Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! Yeah, think you're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I said Im liberal, you just mentioned liberalist movements that I agree with 🤷♂️ Again, the question is, can "wokeness" - not liberalism - go too far? Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? My original post has examples on how wokeness discriminates and creates social injustice - do you disagree? " Yes, DEI is about equity, not equality. Giving people who are disadvantaged the opportunities that they would otherwise be excluded. They still have to meet the standards required. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! Yeah, think you're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I said Im liberal, you just mentioned liberalist movements that I agree with 🤷♂️ Again, the question is, can "wokeness" - not liberalism - go too far? Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? My original post has examples on how wokeness discriminates and creates social injustice - do you disagree? Yes, DEI is about equity, not equality. Giving people who are disadvantaged the opportunities that they would otherwise be excluded. They still have to meet the standards required. " Not if a quota hasn't been hit... And it's only certain "disadvantaged" groups not all so... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What does woke mean though as it’s different meanings to different people. The dictionary definition is; "alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination" Which is my understanding of it, Im certainly not using it as a pejorative, just more to separate it from liberalism which is defined as: "willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas" Which im not seeing from those im referring to as "woke". Liberalism respects the opposing view. Wokeness wants the opposing view silenced. Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? God forbid wanting to live in a world where people have equality of outcomes and can live without hate and discrimination. Maybe the suffragettes should have just shut up and put up. And the abolitionists. How disrespectful and intolerant of them! Yeah, think you're getting the wrong end of the stick here. I said Im liberal, you just mentioned liberalist movements that I agree with 🤷♂️ Again, the question is, can "wokeness" - not liberalism - go too far? Is wanting an end to discrimination and social injustice that actively harm people's lives so awful? My original post has examples on how wokeness discriminates and creates social injustice - do you disagree? Yes, DEI is about equity, not equality. Giving people who are disadvantaged the opportunities that they would otherwise be excluded. They still have to meet the standards required. Not if a quota hasn't been hit... And it's only certain "disadvantaged" groups not all so... " If there are quotas and people are being hired purely for being from a disadvantaged group, that's positive discrimination, not positive action. I do not agree with positive discrimination, I do agree with positive action. And if people are aware of positive discrimination, they should report it. Otherwise the practice will continue. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. " That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, DEI is about equity, not equality. Giving people who are disadvantaged the opportunities that they would otherwise be excluded. They still have to meet the standards required. " This is not true. Numerous companies had/still have "hiring targets" based on sex, ethnicity, etc as part of DEI policies. Is that not DEI? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else." "That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down." The comparison does hold. Both sides use emotion to attract people to their cause. I agree that one side is punching up while the other is punching down, but that's not relevant to your original contention that 'only the right rely on emotion to gain support'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down." It looks like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of right wing politics and comparing it with the best possible interpretation of left wing politics | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down. It looks like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of right wing politics and comparing it with the best possible interpretation of left wing politics " Which one of those groups accuses the Jews of controlling the world politicians, financial systems and media, again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political right brought us Brexit based on lies. That itself should be a warning to everyone about what you're currently being fed by the right wing media, US far right Republicans and their social media trolls, with a little Russian agitation thrown in. Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit......" You do know that the UK was taken into the EEC in 1973 by a Conservative government, don't you? You do know that the late Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn etc. were all opposed to continuing UK membership of the EU, don't you? Sorry to disturb a good rant with facts... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The political right brought us Brexit based on lies. That itself should be a warning to everyone about what you're currently being fed by the right wing media, US far right Republicans and their social media trolls, with a little Russian agitation thrown in. Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit......" Maybe you've forgotten that the Conservative government allowed the 'Remain' campaign to spend more than twice as much as 'Leave' on propaganda, based on 'The Fear Factor.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit......" The UK was never in the Schengen area, so this would be happening even if we were still EU members. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down. It looks like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of right wing politics and comparing it with the best possible interpretation of left wing politics Which one of those groups accuses the Jews of controlling the world politicians, financial systems and media, again?" Remind us. Was it the party led by the first obviously Jewish prime minister 150 years ago, or the party whose last leader 'liked' a blatantly anti-Semitic mural? Damned facts, eh...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit...... The UK was never in the Schengen area, so this would be happening even if we were still EU members." Don't confuse them with facts, they might be upset. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Sorry to disturb a good rant with facts..." 🤣👌 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else. That comparison doesn’t really hold. Criticising people with power for how they use it isn’t the same as blaming vulnerable groups for problems they didn’t cause. Both sides might use emotion, sure, but only one’s punching down. It looks like you are taking the worst possible interpretation of right wing politics and comparing it with the best possible interpretation of left wing politics Which one of those groups accuses the Jews of controlling the world politicians, financial systems and media, again?" If you pick the specific case of anti-Semitism, sure. Even then, USSR also persecuted Jews. If we are taking the extreme versions of both ideologies, we should be comparing Nazi Germany against USSR and Maoist China. End of the day, tens of millions were killed. Did USSR and Maoist China just "punch up"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Self proclaimed intellectual and being unconsciously unaware, is something I'm not going to argue against.." Unlike some right-wing populists, I believe thinking and talking about things in a reasoned manner without resorting to emotions like fear and hate is a good thing. As for self-awareness, one of the most important things I've learned over a long and very colourful life is that the more I know, the more I realise how little I know. This leads to a thirst for learning and discovery. Too much self-confidence can be problematic but to develop skills in difficult fields one needs to be sufficiently confident that it's worth spending the time. Likewise in any creative endeavour - to innovate one needs a degree of self-belief. Maybe you could do with a bit more self-confidence then you might improve your debating skills via good-faith engagement rather than running away or hiding behind fallacies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... you might improve your debating skills via good-faith engagement ..." I look forward to seeing you apply this to your own posts. We could certainly do with more good-faith debating round here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else" There are some people who have more money than they could ever possibly spend and others who have virtually nothing. Saying that people at the bottom of society deserve the basic necessities of life and some dignity isn't the same thing as resentment. The culture wars are essentially liberals complaining about the reactionary attitudes of some conservatives and those conservatives then complaining about anyone daring to challenge said attitudes. Many people are forced to work in mega factories or similar in order to scrape by and earn the minimum wage. The messaging from the populist right is that this is the fault of immigrants rather than the people who have more money than they could ever spend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You do know that the UK was taken into the EEC in 1973 by a Conservative government, don't you? You do know that the late Tony Benn, Ken Livingstone, Jeremy Corbyn etc. were all opposed to continuing UK membership of the EU, don't you? Sorry to disturb a good rant with facts..." Not exactly sure the point you're trying to make really, the Tories of 50 years ago were a whole lot different to the Tories (read UKIP/Reform) of today. The fact most Tory Brexiteers have joined Reform should be enough to tell you that. Yes, many on the left didn't like the EU either, but they were wrong as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit...... The UK was never in the Schengen area, so this would be happening even if we were still EU members." No it wouldn't | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do you not see that this is exactly how politics on the left works? Resentment (the rich are taking too much from society), cultural (it's the pale male stale people that cause all the problems), and fear (they're planning to take everything we have and force us to work in their mega factories). I agree with you that almost all communication in politics is designed to engage emotions, but I can't see how you think the right are any different to anyone else" My argument above is that the left use emotion to manipulate the viewers just as much as the right do. And you have chosen to counter that with an argument about how something I didn't say doesn't count as resentment. Do you honestly think that you're engaging in food-faith discussion? But to address a couple of your points: "There are some people who have more money than they could ever possibly spend and others who have virtually nothing." That's obviously true, and entirely irrelevant. "Saying that people at the bottom of society deserve the basic necessities of life and some dignity isn't the same thing as resentment." Nobody said it was. But look at any gathering of socialists and you'll soon encounter slogans along the lines of "Tax the rich", and "Stop the fat cats". That is resentment. Listen to a Labour speech and count the number of times they point out how disadvantaged some people are, then count the number of times they say "those with the broadest shoulders". You'll find they spend a lot of time talking about who should pay more, and very little describing who should receive more. That's stoking resentment. "Many people are forced to work in mega factories or similar in order to scrape by and earn the minimum wage. The messaging from the populist right is that this is the fault of immigrants rather than the people who have more money than they could ever spend." Absolutely no one is saying that poor people are forced to work in factories because there are immigrants in the country. Yes Amazon have big factories, and yes Jeff Bezos has a lot of money. But he doesn't force people to work for him. And the alternative to allowing people to make lots of money is that Jeff takes his business somewhere else, and all those people don't have any jobs at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone looking forward to fingerprints and biometrics being taken to enter Schengen / EU from Monday? More queues. Lovely Brexit benefit......" "The UK was never in the Schengen area, so this would be happening even if we were still EU members." "No it wouldn't" Explain your thinking. How would an EU citizen living in a UK which was an EU member state gain entry into the Schengen Zone without having to provide their biometrics? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Explain your thinking. How would an EU citizen living in a UK which was an EU member state gain entry into the Schengen Zone without having to provide their biometrics?" My thinking? It's not my "thinking". The UK actually helped design this system before leaving the EU. Any non-EU passport holder entring the Schengen area needs to provide finger prints and biometrics as from Monday (although its a phased introduction). Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (non-EU) are also exempt. So the claim that even if the UK hadn't left the EU we would still have been subject to this is completely wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Many people are forced to work in mega factories or similar in order to scrape by and earn the minimum wage. The messaging from the populist right is that this is the fault of immigrants rather than the people who have more money than they could ever spend. " You could say the same people have more money than they will ever spend you could also say that some people spend more money they will ever have and that's why the country is fucked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My argument above is that the left use emotion to manipulate the viewers just as much as the right do. And you have chosen to counter that with an argument about how something I didn't say doesn't count as resentment. Do you honestly think that you're engaging in food-faith discussion?" I'm making reasoned points in response to what you wrote. I'm not sure why you consider this is in bad faith. "But look at any gathering of socialists and you'll soon encounter slogans along the lines of "Tax the rich", and "Stop the fat cats". That is resentment. Listen to a Labour speech and count the number of times they point out how disadvantaged some people are, then count the number of times they say "those with the broadest shoulders". You'll find they spend a lot of time talking about who should pay more, and very little describing who should receive more. That's stoking resentment." Why do you characterize this as resentment? These are proposals on how to address the huge and increasing differences in wealth between the top and bottom of society. You could present arguments for why this would be unjust or wouldn't work in practice but just dismissing it as "resentment" is pretty meaningless. "Absolutely no one is saying that poor people are forced to work in factories because there are immigrants in the country." I must have just imagined the argument that immigration causes lower living standards by suppressing wages. Never mind that it's supposed to be responsible for higher housing costs, stretched public services etc. "Yes Amazon have big factories, and yes Jeff Bezos has a lot of money. But he doesn't force people to work for him. And the alternative to allowing people to make lots of money is that Jeff takes his business somewhere else, and all those people don't have any jobs at all." I think the argument against Amazon is that they have paid very little in tax despite their UK annual turnover being something like £27 billion and that working conditions for their staff are pretty grim. But my point was more general in that about two million Brits work on minimum wage and many are only slightly above this. Housing is very expensive and public services are rubbish and the solution being proposed by the right is to massively reduce tax on the rich, cut public spending, sack loads of people and slash benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But my point was more general in that about two million Brits work on minimum wage and many are only slightly above this. Housing is very expensive and public services are rubbish and the solution being proposed by the right is to massively reduce tax on the rich, cut public spending, sack loads of people and slash benefits." People who think Farage, Reform etc are the answer to their own problems need to wake up to the con, just like many Americans are realising the Con Man in Chief doesn't give a rats about them either, and is actually the polar opposite of what he claimed to be (the first time round should have been the warning). Sadly, Labour just play into the far rights hands hands time after time, Lib Dems are useless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm making reasoned points in response to what you wrote. I'm not sure why you consider this is in bad faith." You aren't responding to what I wrote. I wrote 'the left use emotion to get voters', and you came back with 'but theres disparity and it's unfair'. You're not acknowledging or countering my argument, you're just changing the subject to something you feel you can control. "Absolutely no one is saying that poor people are forced to work in factories because there are immigrants in the country." "I must have just imagined the argument that immigration causes lower living standards by suppressing wages." And here we are again. I say 'the existence of immigrants doesn't force people to work in factories', and you come back with 'but immigrants harm living standards'. That's nothing to do with the point I was making, it's just you seeking safer ground. Either you lack the intellectual capacity to understand that you aren't making a cogent argument, or you're acting in bad-faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You aren't responding to what I wrote. I wrote 'the left use emotion to get voters', and you came back with 'but theres disparity and it's unfair'. You're not acknowledging or countering my argument, you're just changing the subject to something you feel you can control." F*cking hilarious. You're quoteing me as writing 'but theres disparity and it's unfair' when I didn't. You are moaning about me not addressing your point about the left using emotion but I wasn't interested in that, I was addressing your other points about resentment, culture wars and fear. If it's OK with you I'll respond to your posts as I please. "And here we are again. I say 'the existence of immigrants doesn't force people to work in factories', and you come back with 'but immigrants harm living standards'. That's nothing to do with the point I was making, it's just you seeking safer ground. Either you lack the intellectual capacity to understand that you aren't making a cogent argument, or you're acting in bad-faith." And again you are inventing words I didn't write. You said"Absolutely no one is saying that poor people are forced to work in factories because there are immigrants in the country." I disagreed with this and responded "I must have just imagined the argument that immigration causes lower living standards by suppressing wages. Never mind that it's supposed to be responsible for higher housing costs, stretched public services etc." If you can't see the obvious connection between the right-wing argument that immigration causes lower wages and lower living standards in general and the argument that this is why people have to do shitty low-paid jobs then there's probably no point in me addressing you in future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"F*cking hilarious." And we've got to the ad hominem. No surprise. "You are moaning about me not addressing your point about the left using emotion but I wasn't interested in that ..." Exactly. You quote other people's posts, and then go off on your own tangent. Not good-faith. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And we've got to the ad hominem. No surprise." Me saying that I find it f*cking hilarious that you invent quotes while claiming I'm acting in bad faith is not an ad hominem. It's me laughing at the irony. "Exactly. You quote other people's posts, and then go off on your own tangent. Not good-faith." What do you think debate entails? I'm responding to your points with my own thoughts. You brought up resentment, culture wars and fear and I offered my opinions on these things. If all you want is someone to nod and say yes then you're going to be eternally disappointed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don’t really see it that way. The way I’ve always understood it, what people call “left politics” mostly comes from a place of empathy, not resentment. It’s about trying to stop ordinary people getting crushed by systems built for the few. " That's because you are a left winger and you are biased towards seeing left wing politics in a good light. Right wingers would say that they care about safety, individual freedom and development. Remember that for every Hitler, there is a Stalin/Mao. " If you look back through history, the moments where things actually got better for everyone usually came from that kind of thinking — like the NHS after the war, or the New Deal in the US. Even the social models in Scandinavia now came out of a belief that stability and fairness work best when everyone has a stake in it. " Capitalism has been responsible for accelerating innovation and bringing these innovations to the masses in quick time. Scandinavian countries are capitalistic economies. Have you looked at the tax slabs in Sweden/Denmark? They have high tax even for low earners. They don't follow the "Tax those rich people" approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"F*cking hilarious. And we've got to the ad hominem. No surprise. You are moaning about me not addressing your point about the left using emotion but I wasn't interested in that ... Exactly. You quote other people's posts, and then go off on your own tangent. Not good-faith. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""Woke" .... The most over used word or term of the 2020's, a word that poorly educated folk often pick up and run with to use as a weapon in a debate when they are losing the argument. The fact that it's a favoured word for Trump, Farage, and Jenrick proves the point." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a 90's kid, I am the epitome of "each to their own, aslong as it doesn't impede others". I don't judge anyone by their ethnicity, sexuality or lifestyle choices. True, traditional liberalism. Today's liberalism seems to want to focus on these traits and instead of just accepting them as equal, morph them into something more; Ethnicity - Rather than treating everyone the same and everyone having the same opportunities, people from certain backgrounds are given priority in DEI roles. Positive discrimination if you will. Sexuality - Rather than being accepting of everyone's sexual preferences, those who aren't attracted to a partiular group are branded "phobic" rather than acknowledging its just their personal preference. Lifestyle - Rather than acknowledging a wee boy choosing to play with dolls over a cars or a wee girl choosing to play in the mud over playing with make up is now seen as a boy showing feminine traits or a girl showing masculine traits, rather than what it is - a child playing with something they enjoy. It has nothing to do with identity. I can think of many other examples, but just wondering if anyone agrees, is there such a thing as too "woke" or Liberal? Has the spectrum shifted significantly? I feel like my genuinely, truly open views from the 90s are now seen as some crazy right wing stance but then again, we are only ever fed the stuff from both extremes, I hope the central silent majority is still just that. Central." Cynically, I do wonder how much of the political divide over "wokeness" has been urged along as a distraction campaign since the financial crash that saw movements like Occupy Wall street spring up. I am a staunch egalitarian where it's not just about treating everyone equally, but trying to ensure people have at least the same minimum starts in their life in this world where nepotism is rife. So much of politics these days now is just left Vs right narratives that are highly inflated instead of taking a step back to address how we are all being screwed by the same thing, even with the conveniences it may give us as we lose more and more control in our lives. How much of this is to distract away from increasing powerlessness of normal people in global systems that prioritise the interests of massive companies and massive multinational firms that can easily outcompete smaller competitors so these companies can get away with absolutely huge crimes while still being sold in the shops (nestle a prime example, but among many others, especially in the data harvesting tech sector). And yes, we're fairly screwed by things even in rich countries but it gets worse in the global South where direct control and direct colonialism was replaced by much more subtle methods of neocolonialism through the financial systems to ensure these countries would focus first and foremost on being cheap processors or manufacturers of the foods the rich countries needed. Focusing on their own populations becomes second, and we often see the avid western support of corrupt tyrants that agree with this and prosper from it, or orchestrated propaganda campaigns, sanctions, or even coups and targeted assassinations to those that don't abide by these rules. Can't forget either how money (a concept we as a species came up with to simplify trade between strangers) has completely lost meaning once it became so immaterial. The system isn't built around focusing on the amounts of "money" or wealth normal people possess (which even as a member of a first world country, we're far from normal), it's focused on amounts of the multiple millions if not billions that are based only on shared belief and speculation. Because it's not focused on "normal" amounts and is instead focused on the huge unfathomable levels that give greater returns, the actual wealth of normal people will go down in response as it's less valuable. 1% of the global population possessing nearly 40% of global wealth and who also see greatest returns and increase year after year is not a problem at all in economics as long as you focus simply on "numbers go up, meaning that's good". We're in a very convoluted extremely complex mess where there's no easy way out or no easy fix, but it's so easy to just shift the blame and focus everyone's troubles on some external group instead of grappling with how systematically flawed and self destructive the artificial world we've normalised around us is. Ramble over, but definitely believe the "woke" attention is in many ways a distraction to keep us from examining the bigger far more complicated and dangerous picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As a 90's kid, I am the epitome of "each to their own, aslong as it doesn't impede others". I don't judge anyone by their ethnicity, sexuality or lifestyle choices. True, traditional liberalism. Today's liberalism seems to want to focus on these traits and instead of just accepting them as equal, morph them into something more; Ethnicity - Rather than treating everyone the same and everyone having the same opportunities, people from certain backgrounds are given priority in DEI roles. Positive discrimination if you will. Sexuality - Rather than being accepting of everyone's sexual preferences, those who aren't attracted to a partiular group are branded "phobic" rather than acknowledging its just their personal preference. Lifestyle - Rather than acknowledging a wee boy choosing to play with dolls over a cars or a wee girl choosing to play in the mud over playing with make up is now seen as a boy showing feminine traits or a girl showing masculine traits, rather than what it is - a child playing with something they enjoy. It has nothing to do with identity. I can think of many other examples, but just wondering if anyone agrees, is there such a thing as too "woke" or Liberal? Has the spectrum shifted significantly? I feel like my genuinely, truly open views from the 90s are now seen as some crazy right wing stance but then again, we are only ever fed the stuff from both extremes, I hope the central silent majority is still just that. Central. Cynically, I do wonder how much of the political divide over "wokeness" has been urged along as a distraction campaign since the financial crash that saw movements like Occupy Wall street spring up. I am a staunch egalitarian where it's not just about treating everyone equally, but trying to ensure people have at least the same minimum starts in their life in this world where nepotism is rife. So much of politics these days now is just left Vs right narratives that are highly inflated instead of taking a step back to address how we are all being screwed by the same thing, even with the conveniences it may give us as we lose more and more control in our lives. How much of this is to distract away from increasing powerlessness of normal people in global systems that prioritise the interests of massive companies and massive multinational firms that can easily outcompete smaller competitors so these companies can get away with absolutely huge crimes while still being sold in the shops (nestle a prime example, but among many others, especially in the data harvesting tech sector). And yes, we're fairly screwed by things even in rich countries but it gets worse in the global South where direct control and direct colonialism was replaced by much more subtle methods of neocolonialism through the financial systems to ensure these countries would focus first and foremost on being cheap processors or manufacturers of the foods the rich countries needed. Focusing on their own populations becomes second, and we often see the avid western support of corrupt tyrants that agree with this and prosper from it, or orchestrated propaganda campaigns, sanctions, or even coups and targeted assassinations to those that don't abide by these rules. Can't forget either how money (a concept we as a species came up with to simplify trade between strangers) has completely lost meaning once it became so immaterial. The system isn't built around focusing on the amounts of "money" or wealth normal people possess (which even as a member of a first world country, we're far from normal), it's focused on amounts of the multiple millions if not billions that are based only on shared belief and speculation. Because it's not focused on "normal" amounts and is instead focused on the huge unfathomable levels that give greater returns, the actual wealth of normal people will go down in response as it's less valuable. 1% of the global population possessing nearly 40% of global wealth and who also see greatest returns and increase year after year is not a problem at all in economics as long as you focus simply on "numbers go up, meaning that's good". We're in a very convoluted extremely complex mess where there's no easy way out or no easy fix, but it's so easy to just shift the blame and focus everyone's troubles on some external group instead of grappling with how systematically flawed and self destructive the artificial world we've normalised around us is. Ramble over, but definitely believe the "woke" attention is in many ways a distraction to keep us from examining the bigger far more complicated and dangerous picture. " Add "immigrants are invading us" as another distraction. Whilst the divide between rich and poor widens, whilst the corruption of public funds continues, they have idiots shouting at hotels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Cynically, I do wonder how much of the political divide over "wokeness" has been urged along as a distraction campaign since the financial crash that saw movements like Occupy Wall street spring up. " I have heard this theory before and there might be an element of truth to it. But the first group that fell for this distraction is the left wingers. After all, the goal of the corporates was presumably to distract the socialist left from focusing on economic issues and instead focus on identity politics. And they were successful at it. The backlash against the woke is more of a response towards the left wingers who focus on identity politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have heard this theory before and there might be an element of truth to it. But the first group that fell for this distraction is the left wingers. After all, the goal of the corporates was presumably to distract the socialist left from focusing on economic issues and instead focus on identity politics. And they were successful at it. The backlash against the woke is more of a response towards the left wingers who focus on identity politics." I assume you were being sarcastic about corporates. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible and apart from a few people like Musk they don't talk about identity politics. The liberal/left/progressive identity politics movement now called wokeness has always been a reaction to social conservative/right/reactionary ideas. Thus anti-racism was in opposition to pejudice based on notions of race, feminism was in opposition to discrimination against woment, gay liberation was fighting against homophobia and pro-trans activism is currently fighting against transphobia. The right has shifted position because racism, misogyny and homophobia are no longer considered acceptable in polite society but trans people are still seen as fair game. Populist righ-wing politicians are probably genuinely anti-woke but it's also a convenient distraction from their main aim which is to gut the state and go back to some imagined golden age when the only form of social protection was charity. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I assume you were being sarcastic about corporates. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible and apart from a few people like Musk they don't talk about identity politics. " My reply was to the post about how things changed ever since OccupyWallStreet happened. It is considered a conspiracy theory. But the reasoning goes like this - OccupyWallStreet movement created fear in the corporates about left wingers. So the corporates used media and money to push the left towards identity politics instead of economic issues and the left wingers fell for that trap. Why waste money solving poverty if you can pretend to be socially conscious by pasting BLM and pride logos across your merchandise and social media accounts? At least, this is the explanation behind that theory. " The liberal/left/progressive identity politics movement now called wokeness has always been a reaction to social conservative/right/reactionary ideas. " As a left winger, you would obviously think that. Of course, none of the left wingers fall for media propaganda. " Thus anti-racism was in opposition to pejudice based on notions of race feminism was in opposition to discrimination against woment, gay liberation was fighting against homophobia and pro-trans activism is currently fighting against transphobia. " This is all the stuff they "say". None of the things they do prove it. " Populist righ-wing politicians are probably genuinely anti-woke but it's also a convenient distraction from their main aim which is to gut the state and go back to some imagined golden age when the only form of social protection was charity. " How is the golden age of populist left wing economics working out so far? Are the social welfare systems proving to be sustainable or is it proving to be an elaborate Ponzi scheme that's on its way to failure just like Argentina? The main emotions of left wingers is anyway envy and hatred towards successful and happy people. All this story about helping the poor is just a mask they wear. So I don't think the left wingers will be bothered about the system failing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I assume you were being sarcastic about corporates. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible and apart from a few people like Musk they don't talk about identity politics. My reply was to the post about how things changed ever since OccupyWallStreet happened. It is considered a conspiracy theory. But the reasoning goes like this - OccupyWallStreet movement created fear in the corporates about left wingers. So the corporates used media and money to push the left towards identity politics instead of economic issues and the left wingers fell for that trap. Why waste money solving poverty if you can pretend to be socially conscious by pasting BLM and pride logos across your merchandise and social media accounts? At least, this is the explanation behind that theory. The liberal/left/progressive identity politics movement now called wokeness has always been a reaction to social conservative/right/reactionary ideas. As a left winger, you would obviously think that. Of course, none of the left wingers fall for media propaganda. Thus anti-racism was in opposition to pejudice based on notions of race feminism was in opposition to discrimination against woment, gay liberation was fighting against homophobia and pro-trans activism is currently fighting against transphobia. This is all the stuff they "say". None of the things they do prove it. Populist righ-wing politicians are probably genuinely anti-woke but it's also a convenient distraction from their main aim which is to gut the state and go back to some imagined golden age when the only form of social protection was charity. How is the golden age of populist left wing economics working out so far? Are the social welfare systems proving to be sustainable or is it proving to be an elaborate Ponzi scheme that's on its way to failure just like Argentina? The main emotions of left wingers is anyway envy and hatred towards successful and happy people. All this story about helping the poor is just a mask they wear. So I don't think the left wingers will be bothered about the system failing."
Take a look at the hysteria around Trump and Nobel Peace prize from the left, they never get sucked in by the media..
As for politics of envy, it surely must be an awful place to be in life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Meanwhile, the moral high ground is seized by a guy cheating on his wife. Only on Fab..." Is that the level you're at, snooping around in peoples profiles looking for something to attack them with rather than engage in the debate? You have been reported to the admins. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I assume you were being sarcastic about corporates. Their goal is to make as much profit as possible and apart from a few people like Musk they don't talk about identity politics. My reply was to the post about how things changed ever since OccupyWallStreet happened. It is considered a conspiracy theory. But the reasoning goes like this - OccupyWallStreet movement created fear in the corporates about left wingers. So the corporates used media and money to push the left towards identity politics instead of economic issues and the left wingers fell for that trap. Why waste money solving poverty if you can pretend to be socially conscious by pasting BLM and pride logos across your merchandise and social media accounts? At least, this is the explanation behind that theory. The liberal/left/progressive identity politics movement now called wokeness has always been a reaction to social conservative/right/reactionary ideas. As a left winger, you would obviously think that. Of course, none of the left wingers fall for media propaganda. Thus anti-racism was in opposition to pejudice based on notions of race feminism was in opposition to discrimination against woment, gay liberation was fighting against homophobia and pro-trans activism is currently fighting against transphobia. This is all the stuff they "say". None of the things they do prove it. Populist righ-wing politicians are probably genuinely anti-woke but it's also a convenient distraction from their main aim which is to gut the state and go back to some imagined golden age when the only form of social protection was charity. How is the golden age of populist left wing economics working out so far? Are the social welfare systems proving to be sustainable or is it proving to be an elaborate Ponzi scheme that's on its way to failure just like Argentina? The main emotions of left wingers is anyway envy and hatred towards successful and happy people. All this story about helping the poor is just a mask they wear. So I don't think the left wingers will be bothered about the system failing." Are you saying social welfare is bad? I think we're getting to the nitty gritty here. You call it a ponzi scheme whilst accusing "left wingers" of disliking "happy people" Quite the hypocrite. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" 1. We are dirt poor losers who are just envious of anyone rich and successful. " Never said you are dirty poor. You can be middle class and be envious of people who are richer than you. " 2. We are spoilt rich middle class people who are completely out of touch with the working class. " True " 3. We don't really believe in any of the ideas we promote. " True again " 4. We are ideological fanatics with crazy revolutionary plans to take over the world. " Ideological fanatics yes. Crazy revolutionary plans to take over the world? I never said that. You cooked it up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying social welfare is bad? I think we're getting to the nitty gritty here. " It's not bad. But you can sustain it only if you have enough money to throw at it. " You call it a ponzi scheme whilst accusing "left wingers" of disliking "happy people" " Left wingers promote social welfare not because they care about the poor but because they can use it as a way to get the government take away more money from people who are richer than them. If they really cared about the poor people, they would give out their own money instead of complaining in the internet all the time about "why can't we tax those rich people even more?" " Quite the hypocrite. " Looks like you are the one who misunderstood my post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Are you saying social welfare is bad? I think we're getting to the nitty gritty here. It's not bad. But you can sustain it only if you have enough money to throw at it. You call it a ponzi scheme whilst accusing "left wingers" of disliking "happy people" Left wingers promote social welfare not because they care about the poor but because they can use it as a way to get the government take away more money from people who are richer than them. If they really cared about the poor people, they would give out their own money instead of complaining in the internet all the time about "why can't we tax those rich people even more?" Quite the hypocrite. Looks like you are the one who misunderstood my post." I mean, your strawman arguments are getting more ludicrous with every post. So one of the UK's greatest ever achievements - the founding of the Welfare State - is just a scheme to tax rich people. Good god  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"" 1. We are dirt poor losers who are just envious of anyone rich and successful. " Never said you are dirty poor. You can be middle class and be envious of people who are richer than you. " 2. We are spoilt rich middle class people who are completely out of touch with the working class. " True " 3. We don't really believe in any of the ideas we promote. " True again " 4. We are ideological fanatics with crazy revolutionary plans to take over the world. " Ideological fanatics yes. Crazy revolutionary plans to take over the world? I never said that. You cooked it up." So in you Nietzschean inspired dystopia roughly half the population are rich middle class lefties who are envious of those richer than themselves and simultaneously not really lefties and leftist fanatics. Do you actually believe the bullshit you write or are you an unemployed comedian? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So one of the UK's greatest ever achievements - the founding of the Welfare State - is just a scheme to tax rich people. " Find an appointment for a chronic illness with the NHS now and then let me know if it's still the UK's greatest ever achievement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So in you Nietzschean inspired dystopia roughly half the population are rich middle class lefties who are envious of those richer than themselves and simultaneously not really lefties and leftist fanatics. " Never said that. " Do you actually believe the bullshit you write or are you an unemployed comedian? " Every post you write seems to have at least half of made up bullshit like above. The "bullshit" you claim that I have written was never written by me, it's written by you. Does that make you an unemployed comedian? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Find an appointment for a chronic illness with the NHS now and then let me know if it's still the UK's greatest ever achievement." That's what happens when you have a Govt who attacked the Welfare State for 14 years and who wilfully neglected the NHS on behalf of private healthcare lobbyists and donors. But I guess you know that. I'll also add that Labour are no better. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Find an appointment for a chronic illness with the NHS now and then let me know if it's still the UK's greatest ever achievement." And what are the right proposing on healthcare? Syphoning off yet more NHS funding for profit. Do your favour replacing general taxation funding with individualised insurance schemes?Where if the insurer doesn't think they'll make a profit they'll not give you cover. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Find an appointment for a chronic illness with the NHS now and then let me know if it's still the UK's greatest ever achievement. That's what happens when you have a Govt who attacked the Welfare State for 14 years and who wilfully neglected the NHS on behalf of private healthcare lobbyists and donors. But I guess you know that. I'll also add that Labour are no better." Let me guess. Just a little bit more taxes and we can solve this problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Find an appointment for a chronic illness with the NHS now and then let me know if it's still the UK's greatest ever achievement. And what are the right proposing on healthcare? Syphoning off yet more NHS funding for profit. Do your favour replacing general taxation funding with individualised insurance schemes?Where if the insurer doesn't think they'll make a profit they'll not give you cover. " I don't mind the concept of NHS. But the way it's done in the UK, it has completely stifled private healthcare. But that's a whole different debate, unrelated to this thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never said that." Go back and check what you said about my itemised tropes. You said 2 and 3 were true and 4 partly true. Or maybe you are just disputing that you are a fan of the man with the big moustache or that roughly half of the population are left-wing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let me guess. Just a little bit more taxes and we can solve this problem?" We just dont need Govts beholden to private healthcare corporations trying to turn our healthcare from free at the point of delivery into some nightmarish system we see in the USA. That would be a good for starters and personally, as someone who earns no more than a UK average wage, I'd be happy paying more tax to improve our social welfare because I appreciate that there are people less fortunate than me who need a safety net. I may need it one day as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't mind the concept of NHS. But the way it's done in the UK, it has completely stifled private healthcare. But that's a whole different debate, unrelated to this thread." You seemed happy enough to talk about Ponzi schemes earlier. In what way has the NHS completely stifled private healthcare? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Never said that. Go back and check what you said about my itemised tropes. You said 2 and 3 were true and 4 partly true. " "half the population are rich middle class lefties" Did I ever say that half the population are rich middle class lefties? " who are envious of those richer than themselves and simultaneously not really lefties and leftist fanatics. " Never said they are not real leftists either. I just said that the underlying motivations aren't what the left claims to be. It would save everyone a lot of time if you stop imagining things which were never written. If you want to do that, writing fiction would be a better career choice than being a comedian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't mind the concept of NHS. But the way it's done in the UK, it has completely stifled private healthcare. But that's a whole different debate, unrelated to this thread. You seemed happy enough to talk about Ponzi schemes earlier. In what way has the NHS completely stifled private healthcare?" I was responding to your post about how the right wing politicians were going to attack the welfare state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let me guess. Just a little bit more taxes and we can solve this problem? We just dont need Govts beholden to private healthcare corporations trying to turn our healthcare from free at the point of delivery into some nightmarish system we see in the USA. " Things cost money. The NHS isn't any different. " That would be a good for starters and personally, as someone who earns no more than a UK average wage, I'd be happy paying more tax to improve our social welfare because I appreciate that there are people less fortunate than me who need a safety net. I may need it one day as well." Great! If you are happy paying more tax, why don't you start by making voluntary tax contributions? Considering the number of online left wingers who are happy to pay more tax, I would have expected the government to have received millions in voluntary tax. But the last time I checked, it was something around £1500. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Did I ever say that half the population are rich middle class lefties?" You said that trope 2 "We are spoilt rich middle class people who are completely out of touch with the working class" was true. "We" being the left. Roughly half of the population are on the left therefore you are saying roughly half the population are rich middle class lefties. "Never said they are not real leftists either. I just said that the underlying motivations aren't what the left claims to be." You said trope 3 "We don't really believe in any of the ideas we promote" was true. "We" being the left. If someone doesn't really believe in the ideas of the left then in what sense are they on the left? "It would save everyone a lot of time if you stop imagining things which were never written. If you want to do that, writing fiction would be a better career choice than being a comedian." I'm trying to probe the meaning of the words you type. That's why I say what I think the words mean and ask questions to see if I am understanding or misunderstanding your intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I was responding to your post about how the right wing politicians were going to attack the welfare state." That doesn't answer my question "In what way has the NHS completely stifled private healthcare?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Roughly half of the population are on the left " This here is the fiction you made up. Hence the entire statement about me calling half the country left wingers is also fictional. " You said trope 3 "We don't really believe in any of the ideas we promote" was true. "We" being the left. If someone doesn't really believe in the ideas of the left then in what sense are they on the left? " For me, left wingers, in the economic sense, want high taxes and centralised control of economy. The underlying motivation could be anything. I said it has nothing to do with caring for the poor. I never said they aren't left wingers. Again, it would save everyone a lot of time if you stop making these lame conclusions without even reading my post clearly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Things cost money. The NHS isn't any different. " Yeah, and? "Great! If you are happy paying more tax, why don't you start by making voluntary tax contributions? Considering the number of online left wingers who are happy to pay more tax, I would have expected the government to have received millions in voluntary tax. But the last time I checked, it was something around £1500." I'm happy to pay more tax improve our public services [inc NHS] and provide a safety net for those less fortunate. I take it you couldn't care less about that, you just want to run the system down and privatise the hell out of everything because you dont want to contribute more, and can afford the consequences or privatisation. We get you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let me guess. Just a little bit more taxes and we can solve this problem? We just dont need Govts beholden to private healthcare corporations trying to turn our healthcare from free at the point of delivery into some nightmarish system we see in the USA. Things cost money. The NHS isn't any different. That would be a good for starters and personally, as someone who earns no more than a UK average wage, I'd be happy paying more tax to improve our social welfare because I appreciate that there are people less fortunate than me who need a safety net. I may need it one day as well. Great! If you are happy paying more tax, why don't you start by making voluntary tax contributions? Considering the number of online left wingers who are happy to pay more tax, I would have expected the government to have received millions in voluntary tax. But the last time I checked, it was something around £1500." yeah, typical rightists, always wanting evreyone else to pay for the things they want.... the trouble with conservativism is that it always runs out of everyone elses money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Things cost money. The NHS isn't any different. Yeah, and? Great! If you are happy paying more tax, why don't you start by making voluntary tax contributions? Considering the number of online left wingers who are happy to pay more tax, I would have expected the government to have received millions in voluntary tax. But the last time I checked, it was something around £1500. I'm happy to pay more tax improve our public services [inc NHS] and provide a safety net for those less fortunate. I take it you couldn't care less about that, you just want to run the system down and privatise the hell out of everything because you dont want to contribute more, and can afford the consequences or privatisation. We get you. " Simply putting more money into failing services isn't a guaranteed recipe for improvement, and with failing services like the NHS money alone is certainly not the answer. Unfortunately this government like many left wing governments before it have given the public purse to these services with no deal to improve the services they provide. Trying to obtain a deal for service improvements in line with pay rises and investment is met with strikes that severely disrupt peoples lives, in some cases critically. I have no sympathy for those that expect more and more for less and less, and I will never support a government that bows the unions and asks nothing in return. Public services should provide their value all of the time, not some of the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
