The All Things Political Topic - new edition

[Chairchucker]

15 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

For instance, when you said that "people who use 'woke' as a pejorative are worthless", there is no difference in that to how a Republican may condemn liberals as softies  who ought to just píss off or whatever. It's the exact same game.

No difference ey. Both sides ey.

There may have been some hyperbole, but generally speaking in the current climate when people criticise others as being 'woke', it's because they are doing things like calling out systemic injustice, pointing out that climate change exists, (this one's weird, acknowledgement of a scientific consensus shouldn't have a use in a pejorative that seems to be trying to criticise people for caring about people's feelings or whatever) suggesting that trans people should be allowed to exist, that sort of thing, so frankly no, they're not the same thing, and you've applied zero critical thought to this conclusion.

[xzar_monty]

4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

There may have been some hyperbole

Well it might be a good idea to leave it out, right? Describing an entire group of people as "worthless" on the basis of how they use one single word is not very mature, nor does it represent good thinking. I'm pretty sure that you actually agree with this statement.

[Chairchucker]

And it might also be good to not uncritically 'both sides' a situation where one side is mocking the other for wanting LGBTQ people to be allowed to exist, I guess we could all do things differently ey?

[Chairchucker]

Oh sure, one side is trying to strip the rights from minorities and destroy the planet, but the other side engaged in some very uncivil discourse, so who's to say which side is worse?

[BruceVC]

39 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

I don't go around calling myself a 'libtard', but I still know to disregard the opinions of people who use that as a pejorative, too.

Good, I  really didnt think you did tell people you woke. In fact do you know anyone in RL who ever calls themselves woke, have you ever met anyone who does?

The words been hijacked and abused by some on the right and left but particularly on the Internet and in US political grandstanding and culture wars  like when DeSantis says he is fighting "wokeness " or what Majorie  Taylor Green says 

But it initially had a well meaning definition but thats gone now because it means different things now to different people and when words no longer have an agreed on definition they become meaningless or get thrown around on a whim 

I use it on Codex but thats because it has a specific meaning to make a certain point but thats only on Codex and in certain debates. And Im sure my definition is not the same as others on Codex

[Gorth]

DeSantis would fight to make Flat Earth as mandatory curriculum and ban Darwin from the classrooms if it gave him more votes (which it could in Florida)...

He'll probably spend the rest of his political life fighting literacy and enlightenment to appease his chosen followers. Doesn't mean that anything he says is to be ignored, as it should serve as a warning of what is wrong some communities.

Edit: I.e. somewhere, somehow, something is very, very wrong...

Edit: Insert picture of Don Quixote fighting windmills here

[xzar_monty]

13 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Oh sure, one side is trying to strip the rights from minorities and destroy the planet, but the other side engaged in some very uncivil discourse, so who's to say which side is worse?

I was not talking about that at all, not even a little bit, which should be obvious if you read what I wrote.

What I was talking about was that the disdain that these sides hold for each other appears identical. And that, in itself, quite apart from all other considerations, is a huge problem. That, in itself, is going to prevent both sides from even attempting to solve the other problems with any proper co-operation.

Edited April 27, 2023 by xzar_monty

[BruceVC]

18 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Oh sure, one side is trying to strip the rights from minorities and destroy the planet, but the other side engaged in some very uncivil discourse, so who's to say which side is worse?

Thats not my  issue with how some lefties and liberals absolutely are part of the same problem that they accuse the right of doing. For example this selective banning of freedom of speech at universities when people on the  right have something to say. Gromnir raised an example of this a while ago, Charlie Kirk was going to speak at UC Davis and radical left protestors tried to stop him with violence and damaging the university

https://www.thefire.org/news/charlie-kirk-event-uc-davis-prompts-violent-protest

Now its a liberal university but thats not how freedom of speech works, if a women who was pro-choice was going to speak at a Conservative Texas university and pro-life protestors tried to stop her we would all be outraged

We need more consistency when it comes to what we believe  as freedoms and how we respond to infringements on them   

Edited April 27, 2023 by BruceVC

[xzar_monty]

12 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But it initially had a well meaning definition but thats gone now because it means different things now to different people and when words no longer have an agreed on definition they become meaningless or get thrown around on a whim

Precisely. For this reason alone, "woke" is not a very good term to be used by anyone, as it's likely to mess things up. Above, @Chairchucker gave one example of what "woke" may mean. It may mean that, indeed. But when it is used pejoratively, it doesn't often refer to that definition at all -- it is more likely to refer to people who would go to war over pronouns, demand safe spaces and trigger warnings, argue that it's perfectly reasonable to retrospectively censor Agatha Christie's works, and so on. For a lot of people, this epitomizes "woke".

[Lexx]

8 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

What I was talking about was that the disdain that these sides hold for each other appears identical. And that, in itself, quite apart from all other considerations, is a huge problem. That, in itself, is going to prevent both sides from even attempting to solve the other problems with any proper co-operation.

But how to fix that? If the person in front of me wants to exterminate minorities, how the hell should I not have an extreme reaction towards it?

This is a genuine question. Obviously we should all try to get closer to each other, but at the same time you just cannot make compromises with people like this. They will not just take your finger, they will take the whole hand and arm and then dismantle you step by step since they love to beat down on everyone they can.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Lexx

[xzar_monty]

Just now, Lexx said:

But how to fix that? If the person in front of me wants to exterminate minorities, how the hell should I not have an extreme reaction towards it?

Those two questions are worlds apart from each other.

As for how to fix that, I don't know. It's a really good question. I think the US is going to have a lot more trouble than it already has, on the basis of this problem alone.

As for your second question: how would your extreme reaction help the situation? Seriously. What good would it do? But for me to answer your question in more detail, I would have to know what you actually mean by "extreme reaction".

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Lexx said:

But how to fix that? If the person in front of me wants to exterminate minorities, how the hell should I not have an extreme reaction towards it?

This is a genuine question. Obviously we should all try to get closer to each other, but at the same time you just cannot make compromises with people like this. They will not just take your finger, they will take the whole hand and arm and then dismantle you step by step since they love to beat down on everyone they can.

But why would  you engage or interact  with people who want to exterminate minorities? Does that happen a lot in Germany,  I dont know anyone in RL who wants to exterminate minorities so I cant offer advice 

And if you talking about the US who are you talking about specifically? Because culture wars hyperbole creates that view but I dont know any prominent politician in the US who says they want to kill people so an example would be useful?

[Gorth]

For some reason, watching internet "debates" make me stop and appreciate this one even more...

Edit: It's about 2 minutes and worth it for the laugh when recognizing certain patterns

 

 

[uuuhhii]

what compromise one can reach with those believe in and proselytize flat earth or creationism

or are the condemnation of not being nice enough to the opposition doesn't extend to these issue

if so what other issue it doesn't extend to

it is very easy to pretend all the conflict can be solved by solution that make everyone equally unsatisfied

[BruceVC]

7 minutes ago, uuuhhii said:

what compromise one can reach with those believe in and proselytize flat earth or creationism

or are the condemnation of not being nice enough to the opposition doesn't extend to these issue

if so what other issue it doesn't extend to

it is very easy to pretend all the conflict can be solved by solution that make everyone equally unsatisfied

You make some good points but  you wouldn't really compromise with people who think the earth is flat because its been scientifically proven its not flat and if someone refuses to accept proven science what more can you say? I know people who have similar views so you either dont debate those issues with them or you just agree to disagree. But you move on to topics you have in common

Its  like that family member who you know has some different view to you, he is still your family member and you love him so you avoid pointless arguments

And then when it comes to politics and those types of views, you must vote for political parties who share most of yours. But you dont need  to convince someone else they wrong about many political issues because its unlikely you are  going to change there mind. And thats fine, I respect we all have different political views 

But the definition of opposition in politics is going to mean people have different views. You can still be friends with them you just disagree on certain topics?

 

 

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

But why would  you engage or interact  with people who want to exterminate minorities?

The internet nowadays is full with anti-trans rhetoric (or anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc it's a long list). Can't visit any social media platform anymore without stumbling over it. At some point you will engage with it in some kind of form.

Just ignoring those people is not a solution, since those opinions have a big influence on future generations. Guess the easiest way to address this, would be by improving the education system, but none of our governments seem to really want that, so here we are.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Lexx

[xzar_monty]

31 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Just ignoring those people is not a solution, since those opinions have a big influence on future generations. Guess the easiest way to address this, would be by improving the education system, but none of our governments seem to really want that, so here we are.

I would argue that the "extreme reaction" you alluded to is not a solution, either. While it is a question of education, as you point out, it is not only that: it is also a question of psychology, personal grievances and so on. All in all, it's quite complex and I certainly don't know how it could or should be solved.

[Chairchucker]

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

I was not talking about that at all, not even a little bit, which should be obvious if you read what I wrote.

What I was talking about was that the disdain that these sides hold for each other appears identical. And that, in itself, quite apart from all other considerations, is a huge problem. That, in itself, is going to prevent both sides from even attempting to solve the other problems with any proper co-operation.

Removing the feelings each side have for each other from the context of why is ridiculous.  If what you care about most in a conflict is the level of discourse, rather than the historical and current context, you're monumentally missing the point.

 

2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Thats not my  issue with how some lefties and liberals absolutely are part of the same problem that they accuse the right of doing. For example this selective banning of freedom of speech at universities when people on the  right have something to say. Gromnir raised an example of this a while ago, Charlie Kirk was going to speak at UC Davis and radical left protestors tried to stop him with violence and damaging the university

https://www.thefire.org/news/charlie-kirk-event-uc-davis-prompts-violent-protest

Now its a liberal university but thats not how freedom of speech works, if a women who was pro-choice was going to speak at a Conservative Texas university and pro-life protestors tried to stop her we would all be outraged

We need more consistency when it comes to what we believe  as freedoms and how respond to infringements on them   

Protests are not 'banning freedom of speech', nor are they censorship. They are exercises of the protesters' own free speech. It appears the 'violence' spoken of didn't happen until after the police went to try and disperse the protest, or as you might call it 'censor or ban their freedom of speech'. (Although that would in some ways be more accurate than the way you used it, since the police have got some kind of government connection going on.)

 

In the counter example you offer, I might indeed be bothered by a pro-choice speaker being protested at a conservative university, but it wouldn't be because 'how dare you protest a speaker that's censorship', (it isn't censorship!) it would be because I disagree with their position, and think that the position they're taking is harmful. In much the same way that I was annoyed by antivaxx protesters because I think what they're doing is harmful.

2 hours ago, xzar_monty said:

Precisely. For this reason alone, "woke" is not a very good term to be used by anyone, as it's likely to mess things up. Above, @Chairchucker gave one example of what "woke" may mean. It may mean that, indeed. But when it is used pejoratively, it doesn't often refer to that definition at all -- it is more likely to refer to people who would go to war over pronouns, demand safe spaces and trigger warnings, argue that it's perfectly reasonable to retrospectively censor Agatha Christie's works, and so on. For a lot of people, this epitomizes "woke".

Oh cool let's talk about those things, too. Going to war over pronouns seems bad, people definitely shouldn't invade other sovereign nations over a linguistics issue. (lol I kid, just a light barb about your use of hyperbole.) But honestly, what do you mean by 'go to war'? For the most part I don't see a great deal of vitriol from the so-called 'woke' crowd about simple pronoun mistakes, more just a 'hey just so you know, this person prefers they/them pronouns' or whatever the case may be. I have definitely seen stronger criticism where it is clear that people are making a point of intentionally not using someone's preferred pronouns, which is honestly reasonable, because where there is intent, it is clear that someone is deliberately addressing someone else in a manner they don't want to be addressed, which seems somewhat disrespectful.

 

BTW let's have an aside about trans people, because they're a somewhat likely candidate for preferring a different pronoun to what people might assume. A statistic that you might occasionally see regarding trans people is that amongst that section of the population, there is a relatively high percentage of people with depression, with suicidal thoughts, or who have attempted suicide. The statistic I just found from a quick internet search was something like 43% of people interviewed had attempted suicide. (This was in Australia.) Interestingly though, there were a few factors that were noted to reduce that statistic. Things like access to gender affirming surgery or hormones, social support from friends, family, co-workers etc, and lack of institutional discrimination. You know, things like just treating them like the gender they identify as, including using preferred pronouns. So, when people advocate for using others' preferred pronouns, one of the reasons is it's just better for their mental health, and at the risk of being DRAMATIC, is one of the many things that contributes towards making people less likely to try to kill themselves. To remove it from the context of trans people, I've known people who preferred to be known by their middle name, or by a certain version of their first name, and addressing them by the way they prefer, and making sure they're OK with what I'm calling them, is just common courtesy, and if I were to intentionally call them by a name or version of name that they didn't want to be called, that would be a jerk move.

 

Now, I'm not as familiar with some of the discourse around safe spaces and trigger warnings. They're just a few of many things that I've seen held up as a straw man far more often than I've seen demands for either. Having said that, neither are really unreasonable things to exist. It's why content warnings exist in media in the first place. People want to know what they're getting into. If you take a victim of sexual assault to see a movie about sexual assault without warning them beforehand, that's kind of a jerk move, the same as if you take someone with conflict related PTSD into a movie with a lot of gunfire. It's a considerate move to 'warn' people that media might include one of their 'triggers', and no one should be mocked for doing this.

 

Regarding Agatha Christie, as previously pointed out, this is not what censorship means. A publishing house electing to modify the content of their own works is just editing. It's always happened, it happened before when, for example, they edited Agatha Christie's book 'Ten Little (N-words)' (which also contained that word repeatedly throughout) to 'And Then There Were None,' or to 'Ten Little Indians.' The UK edition apparently didn't completely phase out the original title until 1985. I'm not sure whether that move received the same kind of performative, misguided outrage as the recent move. Probably more outrage than when they BRUTALLY CENSORED Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by calling it The Sorcerer's Stone in the USA. Edits happen for all kinds of reasons, but for some reason it's only the ones designed to remove slurs and stuff like that which receive performative outrage. (Although to be fair a lot of people did mock the USA for being perceived as not educated/smart enough to read a book called The Philosopher's Stone)

 

I started writing this before I went to netball, so there's probs been some more responses by now, but I don't want to lose my progress so JUST PO

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Lexx said:

The internet nowadays is full with anti-trans rhetoric (or anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc it's a long list). Can't visit any social media platform anymore without stumbling over it. At some point you will engage with it in some kind of form.

Just ignoring those people is not a solution, since those opinions have a big influence on future generations. Guess the easiest way to address this, would be by improving the education system, but none of our governments seem to really want that, so here we are.

I dont use SM for any political or ideological debates for the reasons you mentioned

So I have question and maybe Im missing something, what platforms or aspects of SM do you come across this type of bigotry? Why not just ignore those discussions or places

 

 

 

[Malcador]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But why would  you engage or interact  with people who want to exterminate minorities

Aren't you on the Codex?

[BruceVC]

19 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Aren't you on the Codex?

Yes but there are dozens of debates on Codex and I have never agreed in any debate where people want to exterminate minorities. People on Codex know my views on those topics 

[Gromnir]

so, a former President is on trial for rape but if you read/watch fox you might not be aware o' that fact. top story from fox news is five days ago: 

Billionaire Dem donor defends bankrolling Trump accuser's rape lawsuit as judge seals funding docs

It's unclear why Judge Kaplan, who is not Carroll's lawyer, would keep the materials a secret from the public, given that Hoffman's role as financial backer is public knowledge.

Earlier this month, Habba asked the judge to delay the trial and reopen the discovery process in the case, explaining that Carroll's legal team had disclosed that a nonprofit funded by Hoffman — American Future Republic — had given money to Kaplan's law firm. 

The funding was "particularly relevant in the instant matter given the political overtones of this case" and Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, Habba argued.

wapo site from today:

E. Jean Carroll says #MeToo inspired her to go public with accusation

Carroll and Tacopina verbally sparred at times during his questioning, which lasted about three hours. She appeared to grow irritated at some moments, including when the attorney asked why Carroll did not scream when Trump allegedly assaulted her.

“One of the reasons women don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, ‘Why didn’t you scream?’” Carroll said. “Some women scream, some women don’t. It keeps women silent.”

After more back-and-forth with Tacopina, Carroll responded with audible frustration: “He raped me whether I screamed or not!”

...

am thinking @Hurlshotis gonna need wait before his desired media sea change manifests.

'course the top story at the wapo site is:

Conservative dissenters block abortion limits in Nebraska, South Carolina

While it was women who helped defeat the measure in South Carolina, in Nebraska it was an 80-year-old man who stalled it. Sen. Merv Riepe, a longtime Republican who would have been the decisive vote to advance the bill to a final round of voting, abstained over his concern that the six-week ban might not give women enough time to know they are pregnant.

Riepe told the Flatwater Free Press that he was concerned the Nebraska bill would be viewed as a total ban. “At the end of the day, I need to look back and be able to say to myself, ‘Did you do the best?’” Riepe told the paper. “No group came to me, asking me to do this. This is of my own beliefs, my own commitments.”

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

On 4/27/2023 at 4:44 AM, Chairchucker said:

Protests are not 'banning freedom of speech', nor are they censorship. They are exercises of the protesters' own free speech. It appears the 'violence' spoken of didn't happen until after the police went to try and disperse the protest, or as you might call it 'censor or ban their freedom of speech'.

knee jerk defense o' serial stoopid 'cause you agree with the viewpoint o' the protesters?

...

 "CBS Sacramento reported that some protesters reportedly used pepper spray in an attempt to keep would-be audience members out of the building. "

the protesters had made threats during the week leading up to the charlie kirk event. as such, no police presence woulda' been idiotic. your feels that violence happened once the police attempted to quell protests is based 'pon? protesters were assaulting those who wished to view the event. protesters broke windows and vandalized property. am gonna suggest it is possible to argue that police did not intervene quick or forceful enough once violence occurred, but somehow you reverse and make the police actions the cause o' protester violence? serious?

if the davis protesters had stood outside buildings, chanting their outrage at charlie kirk and the uc davis chancellor, there would have been no story making national news.  'course the proud boys and charlie kirk were much aware just how little it takes to provoke a violent response from young and stoopid in 2023.        

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/28/us/pittsburgh-student-protest/index.html      

gen z protesters and a small number o' antifa idiots keep repeating the same mistake. if you are losing a battle o' wits with charlie kirk and the proud boyz, then you are clear doing something wrong. blame on cops, boomers or sunspots ain't helping.   

 

gen z woulda' so been triggered by william f buckley. ensuing violence woulda' been okie dokie if cops arrived?

in 1963, while john lewis spoke to crowds in washington dc, would you have defended robed klansman heckling and assaulting people attempting to hear the future Congressman speak? 

doubtful.

change facts and make so that at uc davis it were an invited speaker advocating for trans rights recognition and the protesters who eventual engaged in violence were the proud boys. @Chairchuckerwould be defending the proud boys in such a situation? be honest.

from mr. lewis' final essay:

Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.

defense of self and defense o' others against immediate violence is excuses for violence. the presence o' cops, charlie kirk or michael knowles is so not reasonable excuses for vandalism and violence.

btw, am not making some kinda inane equivalency argument. violence from white supremacists in the US is many orders o' magnitude worse than the stick and pepper spray wielding antifa nincompoops or brainless university undergrads. the attack on Congress on january 6 were so not the same as rando george floyd protests in sheboygan. the problem is the young liberal minded folks who see themselves as standing up for Justice while ignoring free speech principles not only fail to recognize the hypocrisy o' their actions, but they is time and again being suckered into the performance art spectacles engineered by the proud boyz and charlie kirk. honest, how stoopid do you need be to keep falling for the same bait?the proud boys set up the situation at uc davis and stanford 'cause they knew how easily provoked is genz and antifa morons. these campus displays is repeated and is engineered purposeful to have substantial cop and camera presence so as to display the hypocrisy and stoopid o' young liberals 'cause then folks like bruce will have ammunition when they engage in false equivalency arguments.

btw am applauding young protesters for vocal criticizing individuals such as charlie kirk. maybe ain't a legal duty, but as we observed with book burnings, remaining silent when you see a wrong being committed or ignored is wrong. young protesters should be vocal. would be nice if those same undergrad firebrands bothered to vote too, but baby steps are required. 

the thing is, once you cross over from peaceful protest to violence, you are trampling on the grave o' folks such as john lewis, and such should not be tolerated. make excuses that you were provoked by the proud boys or police presence is idiotic.

gonna say it once more: if you are repeated losing a chess match with the freaking proud boys, you are doing something wrong. fall for the same obvious ruse again and again andagainanadagainanadagainanadagainandagainandagainandagainandagain? that kinda willful stoopid is not forgivable.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chairchucker]

Hey I just quickly looked up the info and that appeared to be the response from the source I found. If they were assaulting people then, I guess the issue is not censorship but assault.

[Gromnir]

45 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Hey I just quickly looked up the info and that appeared to be the response from the source I found. If they were assaulting people then, I guess the issue is not censorship but assault.

again, change facts so at uc davis it were a speaker promoting trans rights and equality, but proud boyz, klanzmen or other wackjobs showed up to protest. am having no idea what story you read, 'cause you didn't share, so am not knowing what you deem to be cops censoring, or what amounted to dispersing o' protest, or what were the explanation as to why the cops felt justified in doing so. in any event, if at some point the local police intervened and began dispersing the klansmen protesting a trans speaker invited to uc davis, would you have excused resulting klansmen violence? 

maybe you would. maybe you believe violence and mayhem is the proper universal response to censorship. it isn't, but maybe that is your belief. even so, am wondering if your indignation is same if is villains such as white supremacists committing violence, eh?

btw, IF the local and university cops at the charlie kirk event had dispersed a peaceful protest on a state university campus w/o justification, then am personal able to think o' at least ten excellent lawyers who would take the protester's resulting first amendment case pro bono. however, IF the protesters resorted to violence...

furthermore, police busting up a peaceful protest w/o any justification woulda' been even bigger news than the uc davis knuckleheads who got suckered by charlie kirk and his proud boys. 

"Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring."

am able to imagine situations where we would reluctant choose to embrace violence as a form o' protest, but the uc davis situation, even as you describe, is unlikely to satisfy our personal threshold.

HA! Good Fun!