French government denounces American Woke Left

[Ostroeuropa]

This does not pose a problem depending on the framing, emphasis, rhetoric and so on. Plenty of nations have had internal conflicts and hierarchies of a similar kind. Emphasizing this as the most important characteristic as opposed to an element of the story is not necessary compared to focusing on examples of cooperation, mutual benefit, common enemies, and solidarity. As an example, in Wales we do not obsess over the oppression by the English.

It is mentioned, but our history typically puts emotive emphasis on the empire and our participation and benefit from it. This fosters a sense of Britishness regardless of the history of oppression and second class status.

Animosity is basically non-existent now and the issues are typically discussed in terms of poverty, class, and so on more so than nationality and oppression.

The problem with that is that you are retroactively applying nationality to people who didn't hold it.

And why would that matter? Just tell the story from when they did start to hold it with reference to where they came from before. It's what we do with the anglo-saxons.

We don't bother going over their history before they arrived on the Islands. Just "Oh they came from over there, it's not important, they weren't British til they got here anyway.".

Additionally, are you unaware that the Welsh were second class citizens and not part of the nation too?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You'd have to ignore the facts to think they're not. I mean camp auschwitz? Really dude? That sounds pretty fucking fashy.

Wearing edgy shirts isn't exactly strongly indicative of political beliefs.

The event and its average participant can, however, be described concretely as pro-authoritarian.

That would check out more if there weren't actual confirmed neo nazis at the storming of the capitol, aka fascists.

[Punished UMN]

You'd have to ignore the facts to think they're not. I mean camp auschwitz? Really dude? That sounds pretty fucking fashy.

Wearing edgy shirts isn't exactly strongly indicative of political beliefs.

The event and its average participant can, however, be described concretely as pro-authoritarian.

"Sure he had the SS Totenkampf on his shirt with a direct reference to the Holocaust's most infamous atrocity with a pro-Nazi Holocaust phrase on it, but a fascist? idk man, seems like jumping to conclusions."

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Wearing edgy shirts isn't exactly strongly indicative of political beliefs.

The event and its average participant can, however, be described concretely as pro-authoritarian.

That would check out more if there weren't actual confirmed neo nazis at the storming of the capitol, aka fascists.

+1

[Punished UMN]

The problem with that is that you are retroactively applying nationality to people who didn't hold it.

And why would that matter? Just tell the story from when they did start to hold it with reference to where they came from before. It's what we do with the anglo-saxons.

We don't bother going over their history before they arrived on the Islands. Just "Oh they came from over there, it's not important, they weren't British til they got here anyway.".

Additionally, are you unaware that the Welsh were second class citizens and not part of the nation too?

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

[Proctopeo]

Wearing edgy shirts isn't exactly strongly indicative of political beliefs.

The event and its average participant can, however, be described concretely as pro-authoritarian.

That would check out more if there weren't actual confirmed neo nazis at the storming of the capitol, aka fascists.

Does the presence of government employees mean it was an FBI false flag attack?

[Ostroeuropa]

And why would that matter? Just tell the story from when they did start to hold it with reference to where they came from before. It's what we do with the anglo-saxons.

We don't bother going over their history before they arrived on the Islands. Just "Oh they came from over there, it's not important, they weren't British til they got here anyway.".

Additionally, are you unaware that the Welsh were second class citizens and not part of the nation too?

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

This is always going to be the case.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

And why would that matter? Just tell the story from when they did start to hold it with reference to where they came from before. It's what we do with the anglo-saxons.

We don't bother going over their history before they arrived on the Islands. Just "Oh they came from over there, it's not important, they weren't British til they got here anyway.".

Additionally, are you unaware that the Welsh were second class citizens and not part of the nation too?

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

Yup but that’s how almost all forms of nationalism works lol. Zionism looks like a rare exception since it is actually based on reality (e.g. Jewish cultural and organizational continuity from the exile to aliyah). Jews were not invented over the years. Instead they existed back then and exist now. Armenian nationalism is also at least more truthful than for example Azeri nationalism.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

This is always going to be the case.

Yes. Can you address my posts though?

[Punished UMN]

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

This is always going to be the case.

If you're using history to justify your politics and not with the goal to actually learn about the past, yes.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

This is always going to be the case.

If you're using history to justify your politics and not with the goal to actually learn about the past, yes.

That’s what people always do lmao. Of course your “learn from the past” is moralistic, not factual or Machiavellian. In fact it is based on secularized Christian ethics.

People don’t inherently conclude “A needs to apologize to B” from “A hurt B” lol.

[The Marlborough]

It matters because it frames the political events of the past in a mindset that didn't exist at the time.

This is always going to be the case.

Good historians actually try to limit that.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

This is always going to be the case.

Good historians actually try to limit that.

They do. However their works are usually not read much which is good for societies.

Truth makes effective Machiavellianism feasible. A healthy society is sufficiently filled with lies that its rulers are too confused to effectively harm it for personal gain.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is always going to be the case.

If you're using history to justify your politics and not with the goal to actually learn about the past, yes.

As I said, we both want mythology. I'm just self-aware about it.

But alright, let's say the woke left is just accurately reporting history in an objective fashion devoid of political motivation.
What is the utility of an anti-white racist narrative that demonizes and demoralizes white people and inculcates revanchism in minorities?

Seems to me you're rather stuck here.

1. You can side with fascists and say that demographic conflict is our destiny.
2. You can say that the current mythological narrative, by virtue of its measurably negative impacts, must be wrong somehow or reported in a fashion that is destructive and must be changed.
3. You can take an anti-enlightenment view and say that it may well be true, but that we should ignore this and stop saying it anyway.

I side with the 2nd point. I urge you to consider that there are in fact no other options.

[Punished UMN]

If you're using history to justify your politics and not with the goal to actually learn about the past, yes.

As I said, we both want mythology. I'm just self-aware about it.

But alright, let's say the woke left is just accurately reporting history.
What is the utility of an anti-white racist narrative that demonizes and demoralizes white people and inculcates revanchism in minorities?

Seems to me you're rather stuck here.

1. You can side with fascists and say that demographic conflict is our destiny.
2. You can say that the current mythological narrative, by virtue of its measurably negative impacts, must be wrong somehow or reported in a fashion that is destructive and must be changed.
3. You can take an anti-enlightenment view and say that it may well be true, but that we should ignore this and stop saying it anyway.

I side with the 2nd point. I urge you to consider that there are in fact no other options.

I never said they are accurately reporting history.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

If you're using history to justify your politics and not with the goal to actually learn about the past, yes.

As I said, we both want mythology. I'm just self-aware about it.

But alright, let's say the woke left is just accurately reporting history.
What is the utility of an anti-white racist narrative that demonizes and demoralizes white people and inculcates revanchism in minorities?

Seems to me you're rather stuck here.

1. You can side with fascists and say that demographic conflict is our destiny.
2. You can say that the current mythological narrative, by virtue of its measurably negative impacts, must be wrong somehow or reported in a fashion that is destructive and must be changed.
3. You can take an anti-enlightenment view and say that it may well be true, but that we should ignore this and stop saying it anyway.

I side with the 2nd point. I urge you to consider that there are in fact no other options.

I think you know which option I have de facto picked which is 1. Even though I might argue for 3 it just leaks that I don’t actually believe in 2 or 3.

We need to add that actual WNs have their own narratives that make them look good which is why they are particularly erroneous when they discuss Jews and Israel. Hence their stance is a variant of 2, not pure 1.

[Ostroeuropa]

As I said, we both want mythology. I'm just self-aware about it.

But alright, let's say the woke left is just accurately reporting history.
What is the utility of an anti-white racist narrative that demonizes and demoralizes white people and inculcates revanchism in minorities?

Seems to me you're rather stuck here.

1. You can side with fascists and say that demographic conflict is our destiny.
2. You can say that the current mythological narrative, by virtue of its measurably negative impacts, must be wrong somehow or reported in a fashion that is destructive and must be changed.
3. You can take an anti-enlightenment view and say that it may well be true, but that we should ignore this and stop saying it anyway.

I side with the 2nd point. I urge you to consider that there are in fact no other options.

I never said they are accurately reporting history.

Okay. So what do you think about their story on history?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I never said they are accurately reporting history.

Okay. So what do you think about their story on history?

Ignoring me isn’t really good for your narrative.

[Ostroeuropa]

Okay. So what do you think about their story on history?

Ignoring me isn’t really good for your narrative.

We operate in different moral universes. There is nothing to be gained.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Ignoring me isn’t really good for your narrative.

We operate in different moral universes. There is nothing to be gained.

Sadly I agree. Which moral universe do you operate in and which do you think I operate in? Maybe to you I really represent the darkness of things such as Nazism despite not being a Nazi since you and I both know very well that stuff such as what I wrote becoming popular will indeed cause that.

I’m way too honest and unwilling to self-censor that I talk about a lot of stuff that should be kept out of hands of sociopaths. It’s lucky that I’m not a known sociologist or popular blogger. I do promise never to start a blog or Twitter account to talk about the stuff though for it might actually lead to human deaths when read by the wrong people.

[Lamenia]

i fucking hate the word "woke" so much

The term being stupid is, in part, why it's become shorthand for "stupid shit", IMO.

it's an annoying rightist strawman/prejorative

i just really hate it

[Gravlen]

Were there equal non-white candidates to choose from? Or is the company a family run company employing only a father and son in Vermont?

But yeah, it might be a surprise, but you do have to prove a claim of racism.

Clearly I didn't mean a two person company from one family. I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so let's drop this.

Clearly you didn't. Clearly that was something I brought up as an example to illustrate the need to look at a wider context. How me doing that demonstrates bad faith I don't know.

OK? Where's the bullying? Did it happen after the confrontation that got out of hand? If so, do you mean the threatening messages directed at the girl and her friend?

So telling someone they can't have a certain hairstyle, blocking their movement and trying to get scissors to cut it isn't bullying?

No.

It was dangerously close to criminal assault (the police were called and determined that it wasn't over the legal line), but it was not bullying.

Since you like going to Wikipedia, let's use that as a guide to remind ourselves what bullying is:

Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by the following three criteria:
(1) hostile intent,
(2) imbalance of power, and
(3) repetition over a period of time.

Neither criteria 2 nor 3 is met in this case.

That page seems to be a mess. To quote the first two sentences:

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing or threat, to abuse, aggressively dominate or intimidate. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. (emphasis mine)

So it contradicts itself, with your conditions coming from a single source quoted further down the article. And I'd argue that there is an imbalance of power in this case (to quote Wikipedia again, "One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) of an imbalance of physical or social power."). The bully clearly felt that she had the social power to call the shots in this case.

I think that's pure speculation that lacks any ground in what information we have. She might have felt that way, she might not. An equally valid alternative hypothesis is that she thought she was standing up to the powerful, but I wouldn't want to engage in idle speculation.

With condition (2), I wonder if cyberbullying can ever occur. As a decider, here's what Google gave me for a definition of bully: "seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable)". Pretty on the nail for both examples I've given.

I'll stick with the dictionary definitions, or the definitions used reputable organizations such as the American Psychology Association - not just what Google throws up.

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior in which someone intentionally and repeatedly causes another person injury or discomfort. Bullying can take the form of physical contact, words or more subtle actions.

What I see, with this example from 2016, is that you're really struggling to find relevant and convincing examples.

I just threw out the first ones I came across. I'm sorry if you don't like the years, and I'm not going to follow a no-true-Scotsman argument any further. This one is an example of a government claiming something is bullying, so hopefully you'll accept this:

https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/woke-c ... -be-taught

Heh, that's the most amusing thing so far. No, the political actions by a Tory government desperate to reignite a culture war and play the victim in order to distract from their dismal failures do not convince me in the slightest. That's like when Jim Jordan says cancel culture is the number one threat to the US today, or any other thing the Trump GOP has ever said about cancel culture. It cannot be taken seriously.

You really can't expect an honest approach from someone who thinks anti-capitalism is an “extreme political stance”, equated with opposition to freedom of speech, antisemitism and endorsement of illegal activity, and that breaking the law is fine as long as it happens in a "very specific and limited way". These aren't honest people.

That's silly. By your definition, you're censoring the heckler's speech when you refuse them the right to speak out against you at the venue.

No, because as we agreed earlier, you don't have a right to speak at every venue you want to, whenever you want. The venue is specifically booked for me to speak, not you.

But you've gone back on that, since you now go back to a wide definition of censorship. As you said: Since you are supressing me, you are censoring me.

You can book another venue to speak your mind. Whereas if I do, you'll presumably prevent me speaking again, thus suppressing my speech. Preventing you from speaking at one place and point in time is not equivalent to preventing me ever speaking in logic.

But by that token, presumably you'll prevent me from speaking again, thus suppressing my speech.

That's why your approach and using the definition as you do is meaningless.

By your logic, if a government agency covers something you created with stickers having the word "censored" on them, it's not censorship, just them saying "censored" a lot.

No, because government intervention is a completely different beast than the actions of private entities. The bar is different, and freedom of expression protects you from governments to a much larger degree than individuals.

But once more I've shown behaviour that matches the definition, but you refuse to accept it, so let's let this one drop too.

You haven't.

So you were being intolerant when you supported the idea of not giving Cosby a new TV show.

No. I'm being tolerant when I don't ask that Carano be fired even though I disagree strongly with a lot of the things she's said. Not putting a serial rapist back in the same position that he abused is a matter of safety for those he works with. It's a terrible simile.

So a person has to be a threat to the immediate safety of others before you think it's OK to let a company know you won't give them any more of your money? So it would be intolerant to speak out against someone who, say, advocates for the government to forcibly sterilize all immigrants and homosexuals?

[Fedel]

The term being stupid is, in part, why it's become shorthand for "stupid shit", IMO.

it's an annoying rightist strawman/prejorative

i just really hate it

Depends on what argument you believe is being made when someone uses the term. It's certainly a term many use negatively to describe negative things but it has also been used to describe positive things in a negative way and all the other combination of descriptions that pop into your mind. This is the problem with these sorts of discussions.

[Kowani]

it's an annoying rightist strawman/prejorative

i just really hate it

Depends on what argument you believe is being made when someone uses the term. It's certainly a term many use negatively to describe negative things but it has also been used to describe positive things in a negative way and all the other combination of descriptions that pop into your mind. This is the problem with these sorts of discussions.

the first tool for productive discussion: defining what one means when one uses certain words
confucius was right

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

We operate in different moral universes. There is nothing to be gained.

Sadly I agree. Which moral universe do you operate in and which do you think I operate in? Maybe to you I really represent the darkness of things such as Nazism despite not being a Nazi since you and I both know very well that stuff such as what I wrote becoming popular will indeed cause that.

I’m way too honest and unwilling to self-censor that I talk about a lot of stuff that should be kept out of hands of sociopaths. It’s lucky that I’m not a known sociologist or popular blogger. I do promise never to start a blog or Twitter account to talk about the stuff though for it might actually lead to human deaths when read by the wrong people.