French government denounces American Woke Left

[Fahran]

What are you even arguing here

The things people, by and large, don't want progressives to keep as part of their rhetorical tool kit tend to be racist, sexist, and unpatriotic and would be perceived as such by progressives if applied to other social groups.

I don't read that thread.

Essentially, we tackled the "I hate men" topic recently.

This just in folks, liberals subscribe to a liberal conception of the world and sometimes that means they reinforce capital and hierarchy

Well, no, it's more that they have minimal awareness of their unconscious biases in much the same way that conservatives do and tend to promote a paradigm that will inevitably engage in discrimination and injustice while not necessarily addressing unjust hierarchies.

[SD_Film Artists]

Also "anti-western"? Seriously?

Bet this boils down to "don't want the dark and messy parts of our history swept under the rug".

More like far-left papers like the Morning Star insisting that any military action by Nato is "imperialism" yet turn a blind eye to the military actions by non-western countries, even ones who are making a blatent land grab. It's like they didn't get the memo that the Cold War has ended so they're still in 'Nato bad' mode.

[Fahran]

Also "anti-western"? Seriously?

Bet this boils down to "don't want the dark and messy parts of our history swept under the rug".

I mean... the conception of history that a lot of progressives promote seems pretty Eurocentric in that regard.

[Nilokeras]

The things people, by and large, don't want progressives to keep a part of their rhetorical tool kit tend to be racist, sexist, and unpatriotic and would be perceived as such by progressives if applied to other social groups.

What things? My dude this is not whatever other thread you and Ostro play in where you have 1500 pages of blood and soil pro-men mythology or whatever to draw on, you're going to have to be specific

Essentially, we tackled the "I hate all men" topic recently.

Good for you I guess?

Well, no, it's more that they have minimal awareness of their unconscious biases in much the same way that conservatives do and tend to promote a paradigm that will inevitably engage in discrimination and injustice while not necessarily addressing unjust hierarchies.

... I repeat, breaking news, moderates don't have a fully developed and intersectional ideology. At 7: reports at the Vatican that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic.

[Ostroeuropa]

... I repeat, breaking news, moderates don't have a fully developed and intersectional ideology. At 7: reports at the Vatican that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic.

Let's suppose this is right. What is your objection to banning them from being undeveloped and punishing them for it?

Surely this would create pressure on them to become more developed.

[Fahran]

What things? My dude this is not whatever other thread you and Ostro play in, you're going to have to be specific

Abolishing whiteness, decolonization of literature, and misandry provide prime examples. Because of the language and rhetoric employed by the sorts of activists who have a vested interest in the above topics they tend to promote very lopsided and problematic social and intellectual outcomes. It also means that white men in particular have absolutely no reason to become allies because the relationship isn't at all reciprocal or based on mutual compassion or understanding.

Good for you I guess?

I mean... that's one of the rhetorical flourishes associated with and defended by "wokeness."

... I repeat, breaking news, moderates don't have a fully developed and intersectional ideology. At 7: reports at the Vatican that the Pope is, in fact, Catholic.

These people often describe themselves as Marxists, intersectional, feminists, etc. The issue is that nobody ever confronts them on their problematic views and attitudes, and that creates an echo chamber where those views and attitudes become common.

[UniversalCommons]

The entire premise of woke is based on first becoming aware of social justice and racism, waking up. Then taking social and political action. This is far more scary to racists than discussing things. Many of the books you find written in the context of Woke are specifically built on a combination of self help, meditation, and social action. The basic premise of woke is social action from the lefts view and from the right it is inappropiate social beliefs. The arguments being presented here are often right wing being touted as centrist or liberal.
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/st ... ontroversy

[Nilokeras]

I don't expect the respect of the right wing. And just because you declare it's the viewpoint of reaction doesn't make it so. It is a viewpoint many people share from all over the political spectrum.

I mean you can say that, but we're all seeing the posts you make about how the left is 'anti white' and 'anti western' so

As i've pointed out before, your response here is "Everyone who says this is a fascist or reactionary."

Rather the opposite. Whether or not you're actually a fascist is between you and the shrine to Evola you keep in your closet. What I'm instead arguing is that many people - liberal, moderate, leftist, whatever - are being ensnared in the oldest reactionary trick in the book, which is to try and divide the non-reactionary 'progressive' camp by creating imaginary categories of 'extremists' that they can then declare beyond the pale and demand that the 'progressives' purge because they're a threat to society/the reasonable reforms of the moderates/violent etc.

[Fahran]

The entire premise of woke is based on first becoming aware of social justice and racism, waking up. Then taking social and political action. This is far more scary to racists than discussing things. Many of the books you find written in the context of Woke are specifically built on a combination of self help, meditation, and social action. The basic premise of woke is social action from the lefts view and from the right it is inappropiate social beliefs. The arguments being presented here are often right wing being touted as centrist or liberal.
https://www.vox.com/culture/21437879/st ... ontroversy

I would posit that most progressives aren't woke enough then, despite using the word woke to describe themselves in the past before they realized it was cringe. I'm most familiar with the word "woke" being tossed around by Buzzfeed and, despite Vox's shilling, I can't really say I'm too impressed with the things I here "woke" people saying.

Source.

[Fahran]

Rather the opposite. Whether or not you're actually a fascist is between you and the shrine to Evola you keep in your closet. What I'm instead arguing is that many people - liberal, moderate, leftist, whatever - are being ensnared in the oldest reactionary trick in the book, which is to try and divide the non-reactionary 'progressive' camp by creating imaginary categories of 'extremists' that they can then declare beyond the pale and demand that the 'progressives' purge because they're a threat to society/the reasonable reforms of the moderates/violent etc.

They are actually extremists though... So it's not an imaginary subdivision unless you want us to suppose that they're all extremists.

[Ostroeuropa]

I mean you can say that, but we're all seeing the posts you make about how the left is 'anti white' and 'anti western' so

Only the current faction that is predominant in the left in terms of exposure and institutional power. Not the left inherently. I'm left wing after all. You act like it's impossible for the left wing of a political system to have negative traits. I'd suggest to you this same kind of nonsense could be used to defend a rise in Stalinism and state authoritarian socialism. "Oh, but you're repeating right wing memes about how the left is dictatorial, so that's by definition wrong.".

Is it though mate? What if it's true?

Rather the opposite. Whether or not you're actually a fascist is between you and the shrine to Evola you keep in your closet. What I'm instead arguing is that many people - liberal, moderate, leftist, whatever - are being ensnared in the oldest reactionary trick in the book, which is to try and divide the non-reactionary 'progressive' camp by creating imaginary categories of 'extremists' that they can then declare beyond the pale and demand that the 'progressives' purge because they're a threat to society/the reasonable reforms of the moderates/violent etc.

And yet you're still relying on this being definitionally impossible.

As I said, suppose it were common for fascists to declare that "That group is a pedophile front, here is the evidence.".

Does that mean there's never going to be a time they're right?

If a fascist says the sky is blue, does it turn red?

Let me say this; they're conspiratorial. They see this shit everywhere and always will.

But a conspiracy theorist can, on occasion, stumble on to an *actual conspiracy* and they're usually *very excited about that*. It's taken everybody a while to realize "Okay you have a point about these woke types, have a cookie. No, it wasn't the Jews, give the cookie back. We're mildy sorry we ignored you point this out. No, we're not putting you in charge. We'll handle this from here".

Your argument is reliant on this dynamic not being possible.

[Fahran]

If a fascist says the sky is blue, does it turn red?

With enough bombs...

[Nilokeras]

Abolishing whiteness, decolonization of literature, and misandry provide prime examples. Because of the language and rhetoric employed by the sorts of activists who have a vested interest in the above topics they tend to promote very lopsided and problematic social and intellectual outcomes.

Again, what do you even mean by this? What's a lopsided social outcome?

It also means that white men in particular have absolutely no reason to become allies because the relationship isn't at all reciprocal or based on mutual compassion or understanding.

You certainly have a low opinion of white men if you think the only reason they take moral or political stances is because their proponents are sufficiently nice

I mean... that's one of the rhetorical flourishes associated with and defended by "wokeness."

Screencaps of men being gross on Twitter posted with ironic captions don't count as discourse

Unless you want to start a new topic in the feminism thread about sexy Garfield next

These people often describe themselves as Marxists, intersectional, feminists, etc. The issue is that nobody ever confronts them on their problematic views and attitudes, and that creates an echo chamber where those views and attitudes become common.

Ah yes if the last few years and pages of this thread have proven anything, it's that liberal progressivism has completely dominated discourse

[Vassenor]

>abolishing whiteness

...the fuck?

[Ostroeuropa]

If a fascist says the sky is blue, does it turn red?

With enough bombs...

Trying to figure out how many is enough now.

[Gravlen]

Huh. Curious that you fail to demonstrate that "the woke" are racist, and that you earlier claimed that wokeness had a deleterious effect - specifically causing racism - on society (a claim of cause and effect) which you're now backtracking from.

Did we just suddenly forget what SJWs/wokes are? I thought that the term 'SJW' was so overused that you'd criticise those who use it for it being overused. Incase 'SJW' is a new term for you, may I demonstrate MTVs incredibly condescending videos aimed at white males, or Krystina Arielle still being supported after saying "all white people are racist", the idea that cultural traditionalism (and/or ethnonationalism) is fine just as long as it's not white, or general language against white people which would rightly be considred racist if it was talking about any other racial group.

It's always been a meaningless term devoid of content. Or rather, it's meant whatever you like at the moment. "SJW" encompasses everything from Martin Luther King Jr. to Gillette (the company).

[Ostroeuropa]

You certainly have a low opinion of white men if you think the only reason they take moral or political stances is because their proponents are sufficiently nice

You certainly have a low opinion of white men if you think they'll participate in you treating them like second class citizens not just in terms of being cruel to them interpersonally, but in terms of policies and norms you enact.

As Fahran is pointing out, there's no incentive for them to cooperate and every incentive for them to mobilize against this movement.

[UniversalCommons]

There is another problem with some of the context being described here. A lot of the use of Woke is not in the context of theory but in the context of action. Theory is a safe thing. People discuss it. However, when people take to the streets, it stops being theory and it becomes scary. Things like Ferguson and Black Lives Matter protests are scary. Woke is scary because it is demonstrative. There is potentially unpredictable social and political change depending on who gets the upper hand in these conflicts.

[Ostroeuropa]

There is another problem with some of the context being described here. A lot of the use of Woke is not in the context of theory but in the context of action. Theory is a safe thing. People discuss it. However, when people take to the streets, it stops being theory and it becomes scary. Things like Ferguson and Black Lives Matter protests are scary. Woke is scary because it is demonstrative. There is potentially unpredictable social and political change depending on who gets the upper hand in these conflicts.

Theory is not safe when it is merely intellectualized psychological abuse.

[Proctopeo]

And who decides whether they're apt or not? It's a very common view that the woke left is anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western, that they are a hate movement engaged increasingly authoritarian measures.

*takes out a big blue pen and circles 'get liberals to police their own movements to make sure they're never a threat to reactionary hegemony' and 'ensnaring them in the rhetoric and logic of reaction'*

...are you seriously arguing that anti-bigotry is "the rhetoric and logic of reaction"? Or did you just phrase your response in a profoundly terrible manner?

[Fahran]

Again, what do you even mean by this? What's a lopsided social outcome?

If we completely decolonized our curricula and book shelves, we would have minimal reflections or expressions of our traditional literary canon. They would not be reflective of the social experiences of the majority of people despite being very woke. They would also be of somewhat lesser quality on the whole since we're arbitrarily constraining what we read based on the social class and traits of the authors.

If we never push back against the radfems, we'll never address institutional discrimination against men because the manner in which their paradigm is constructed is such that such discrimination will persist or even worsen the longer they wield control over the discourse and get to determine which gendered issues are salient.

You certainly have a low opinion of white men if you think the only reason they take moral or political stances is because their proponents are sufficiently nice

I think a person who aligns themselves politically with people who proclaim how much they hate people like the person in question is foolish. I may well support BLM at a rally for police reform, but I'm not going to support NOI at a similar rally, even when they're promoting similar things on paper, because one of those groups doesn't like people like me and actively has politically-mobilized ill will against people like me.

Screencaps of men being gross on Twitter posted with ironic captions don't count as discourse

Unless you want to start a new topic in the feminism thread about sexy Garfield next

They absolutely do count when that's the brand and substance of the feminism being peddled by a lot of activists. And any feminist or woman who wants to point out the problems inherent to such rhetoric gets branded a "pick-me." Especially when a lot of those statements have nothing to do with men being gross on Twitter.

Ah yes if the last few years and pages of this thread have proven anything, it's that liberal progressivism has completely dominated discourse

NSG is not representative of the broader discourse. At all.

[Punished UMN]

*takes out a big blue pen and circles 'get liberals to police their own movements to make sure they're never a threat to reactionary hegemony' and 'ensnaring them in the rhetoric and logic of reaction'*

...are you seriously arguing that anti-bigotry is "the rhetoric and logic of reaction"? Or did you just phrase your response in a profoundly terrible manner?

No, he's pointing out that it's a common tactic of reaction to equate all supporters of an idea with its most extreme and even fringe proponents in order to delegitimize the idea. Why should left-wing people have to spend all their time policing a wing of their movement when you guys believe in 'no enemies to the right'?

[Nilokeras]

Only the current faction that is predominant in the left in terms of exposure and institutional power. Not the left inherently.

Predominant where? In what institutions?

I'm left wing after all.

You act like it's impossible for the left wing of a political system to have negative traits.

Oh we do. Nobody infights quite like the left. Hence why the right loves to stir the pot and encourage it. Like right now.

I'd suggest to you this same kind of nonsense could be used to defend a rise in Stalinism and state authoritarian socialism. "Oh, but you're repeating right wing memes about how the left is dictatorial, so that's by definition wrong."

What are you even talking about, what does any of this have to do with a dead ideology like Stalinism?

And yet you're still relying on this being definitionally impossible.

Don't be silly. I'm going off the preponderance of evidence, such as in this thread where you had actual fascists agreeing with you.

[Fahran]

>abolishing whiteness

...the fuck?

Source
Source
Source
Source

The rhetorical flourish is used in a wide array of contexts and seems to mean anything from deconstructing race as a concept to ending white supremacy to actually getting rid of white people. It's also deliberately inflammatory because of how it construes racial hierarchies and white identity, and that's where the problem arises. It can shift from being a system to being actual persons at any point in time, and can then be used to rationalize racial hatred.

It's also probably making the white nationalists feel pretty vindicated right about now.

[Ostroeuropa]

Predominant where? In what institutions?

The media and government bodies, universities and academia, and so on.

(Image)

To my own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of people who don't subscribe to woke ideology.

Oh we do. Nobody infights quite like the left. Hence why the right loves to stir the pot and encourage it. Like right now.

So you acknowledge it is possible for a faction of the left to be anti-white, anti-male, and anti-western.

What are you even talking about, what does any of this have to do with a dead ideology like Stalinism?

I'm pointing out that just because it's a common meme argument about the left doesn't mean it's impossible for it to be right on occasion.

Don't be silly. I'm going off the preponderance of evidence, such as in this thread where you had actual fascists agreeing with you.

Fascists would also agree with me if I were pointing out how there was a worrying trend on the left for men with moustaches who loved tanks and sang soviet songs and kept hinting about gulags becoming prominent.

It wouldn't make it less worrying or untrue if that were in fact happening.