French government denounces American Woke Left

[Fedel]

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

While I know this comment is mostly meant to be humorous, when you're entering discussions like these where passions run high and the goal is usually not honest engagement on the part of many people participating in them, no truer words can be spoken.

[Dangine]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

My best definition of woke is "making your race/sexual orientation/gender the most important part of what makes you you." That's the best I can come up with.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

My best definition of woke is "making your race/sexual orientation/gender the most important part of what makes you you." That's the best I can come up with.

Uh it’s not true. Wokism is a weird alliance of very different peoples such as white social liberals and far-rightists in many other ethnic groups.

[Gravlen]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

Though that's a meaningless phrase as well.

Can we call the woke "Shadowpeople" instead? It sounds cooler.
And Cancel Culture can be called "Crystal Fugue State".

[Fedel]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

Though that's a meaningless phrase as well.

Can we call the woke "Shadowpeople" instead? It sounds cooler.
And Cancel Culture can be called "Crystal Fugue State".

People who support wokeism and cancel culture don't deserve cool terms. Authoritarians only deserve denigration.

[Gravlen]

Though that's a meaningless phrase as well.

Can we call the woke "Shadowpeople" instead? It sounds cooler.
And Cancel Culture can be called "Crystal Fugue State".

People who support wokeism and cancel culture don't deserve cool terms. Authoritarians only deserve denigration.

People who support Shadowism and Crystal Fugue State don't deserve cool terms. Authoritarians only deserve denigration.

Yep. Pretty much the same meaning as your post

[Fedel]

People who support wokeism and cancel culture don't deserve cool terms. Authoritarians only deserve denigration.

People who support Shadowism and Crystal Fugue State don't deserve cool terms. Authoritarians only deserve denigration.

Yep. Pretty much the same meaning as your post

Yes, except those terms are indeed cool. With some social rewiring, we could change that, but I'd rather we'd go with the terms most already consider lame.

They can even waste their time fruitlessly trying to "take back" those terms thus distracting them from concentrating power within their tribe.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

My best definition of woke is "making your race/sexual orientation/gender the most important part of what makes you you." That's the best I can come up with.

Uh it’s not true. Wokism is a weird alliance of very different peoples such as white social liberals and far-rightists in many other ethnic groups.

No wokism is when you have to throw it in everyone's face that you're black, as if that wasn't already obvious.

[Fahran]

Because Le Pen has overtaken him in the opinion polls, so he seeks to take away her votes.

And why has Le Pen overtaken him in opinion polls? Is it perhaps that she's addressing a concrete concern that many voters have about French policy and the ongoing discourse? The fact that people are distancing themselves from a particular paradigm in order to cultivate support should give you some indication of how people perceive that paradigm, especially if this move happens to work at all. Gotta say if my first exposure to feminism was the conversation I had the other day instead of being a little girl and wanting to be a doctor, I think I'd understand way better where Ostro is coming from.

[Fahran]

No wokism is when you have to throw it in everyone's face that you're black, as if that wasn't already obvious.

For Shaun King it wasn't obvious though.

My mans be looking paler than me in most pictures.

[Fahran]

I find the term woke dumb, it sounds more like a religious thing. I don't understand what makes “woke” so different from basic leftist and even modern-day thought, it's so generic. It's hard to tell what ideas the french government is denouncing. If it was just canceled culture they should have just denounced cancel culture.

Well, ideology does approximate theology...

[Fahran]

My best definition of woke is "making your race/sexual orientation/gender the most important part of what makes you you." That's the best I can come up with.

Being woke is supposed to be about having some measure of cognizance about how social institutions, conventions, and hierarchies interact to shape our identities, behaviors, attitudes, and paradigms, but a lot of folks who use the term to describe themselves don't really use anything approaching rigor in their analyses of what precisely this means.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Uh it’s not true. Wokism is a weird alliance of very different peoples such as white social liberals and far-rightists in many other ethnic groups.

No wokism is when you have to throw it in everyone's face that you're black, as if that wasn't already obvious.

I disagree. I can actually kind of understand the black American POV now. Unlike you and me they are really desperate and legitimately so. You are Caucasoid and no matter whether people say you are white now you will be 50 years later and you actually are in many societies and even a large part of America. I can bash Sinostatism etc all the way I want but that’s precisely because NE Asian achievements do exist and that Japan has earned the respect which even extends to me. Even fucking China did manage to get out of the European colonial area even better than Turks and Iranians, let alone Indians.

On the other hand if you really analyze black history what will you get? They have the best genetic diversity and good resistance to tropical diseases which are very good. However in terms of interactions with the rest of the world they are usually historically low status. While Huns, Mongols and other East Asian and past East Asian invaders stroke fear into the hearts of East Europeans (which evened East Aryan invasion of some parts of China and Mongolia out) and Middle Easterners it is Arabs and later West Europeans who stroke fear into Africans. Europeans and Middle Easterners invaded and enslaved each other so it evened out. Yet when Sub-Saharan Africa is involved there is a huge inequality. After all Sub-Saharan Africans did not manage to invade Baghdad or Rome and carry away their inhabitants as slaves.

This is why they began to invent bizarre things such as “we were Egyptians.” This might fly 100 years ago but not right now in the digital age where who ancient Egyptians were is actually known due to advances in archaeology and research is disseminated online for free. We could definitely write a Sub-Saharan African history book that is based on facts and looks good (e.g. Igbo metallurgy, Kingdom of Benin, Ethiopia etc) but it will take some work.

[Space Nudists]

Based.

[Fedel]

No wokism is when you have to throw it in everyone's face that you're black, as if that wasn't already obvious.

I disagree. I can actually kind of understand the black American POV now. Unlike you and me they are really desperate and legitimately so. You are Caucasoid and no matter whether people say you are white now you will be 50 years later and you actually are in many societies and even a large part of America. I can bash Sinostatism etc all the way I want but that’s precisely because NE Asian achievements do exist and that Japan has earned the respect which even extends to me. Even fucking China did manage to get out of the European colonial area even better than Turks and Iranians, let alone Indians.

On the other hand if you really analyze black history what will you get? They have the best genetic diversity and good resistance to tropical diseases which are very good. However in terms of interactions with the rest of the world they are usually historically low status. While Huns, Mongols and other East Asian and past East Asian invaders stroke fear into the hearts of East Europeans (which evened East Aryan invasion of some parts of China and Mongolia out) and Middle Easterners it is Arabs and later West Europeans who stroke fear into Africans. Europeans and Middle Easterners invaded and enslaved each other so it evened out. Yet when Sub-Saharan Africa is involved there is a huge inequality. After all Sub-Saharan Africans did not manage to invade Baghdad or Rome and carry away their inhabitants as slaves.

This is actually a valid take I agree with, I still don't believe it justifies asserting one's race simply to create barriers. Only if it helps remove them ( my experience as a black person living in this part of the country under these conditions gives me a deeper understanding on "specific issue" ).

I think the problem is that many people ( non-blacks as well ) consciously confuse the two in order to accumulate power and influence by using an immensely powerful past to stroke passions and channel energy behind specific causes which are often intentionally not what they purport to be about.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I disagree. I can actually kind of understand the black American POV now. Unlike you and me they are really desperate and legitimately so. You are Caucasoid and no matter whether people say you are white now you will be 50 years later and you actually are in many societies and even a large part of America. I can bash Sinostatism etc all the way I want but that’s precisely because NE Asian achievements do exist and that Japan has earned the respect which even extends to me. Even fucking China did manage to get out of the European colonial area even better than Turks and Iranians, let alone Indians.

On the other hand if you really analyze black history what will you get? They have the best genetic diversity and good resistance to tropical diseases which are very good. However in terms of interactions with the rest of the world they are usually historically low status. While Huns, Mongols and other East Asian and past East Asian invaders stroke fear into the hearts of East Europeans (which evened East Aryan invasion of some parts of China and Mongolia out) and Middle Easterners it is Arabs and later West Europeans who stroke fear into Africans. Europeans and Middle Easterners invaded and enslaved each other so it evened out. Yet when Sub-Saharan Africa is involved there is a huge inequality. After all Sub-Saharan Africans did not manage to invade Baghdad or Rome and carry away their inhabitants as slaves.

This is actually a valid take I agree with, I still don't believe it justifies asserting one's race simply to create barriers. Only if it helps remove them ( my experience as a black person living in this part of the country under these conditions gives me a deeper understanding on "specific issue" ).

I think the problem is that many people ( non-blacks as well ) consciously confuse the two in order to accumulate power and influence by using an immensely powerful past to stroke passions and channel energy behind specific causes which are often intentionally not what they purport to be about.

There has to be more nuanced treatment here. For example people in the Middle East should definitely be treated as whites or similar. Hence stuff such as their treatment of Sudanese and crimes against East Africans in Zanzibar should be called out since it is no different from West European slavery. On the other hand whatever conflict between people in Europe and the Middle East is just normal inter-Caucasoid conflict since the balance of power does not inherently or historically favor Europe. This is not more unbalanced than German-Slav conflicts.

Similarly we can’t really say whether people in Japan are inherently more or less privileged than people in Poland. Historically there has never been decisive racial advantage in the steppe. Most steppe empires were mixed and terrorized sedentary Caucasoids and Mongoloids alike. You can’t really argue that there was white privilege when Aryans invaded Mongolia and Gansu and that it magically reversed when Huns raided Italy. Then Mongoloid privilege magically appeared when Mongols took Kiev and then white privilege reappeared and became even stronger when Russia reached the Pacific then since Japan appeared it was magically checked at Amur River. Maybe there was really no privilege and NE Asia has always been somewhere in the league of Caucasoid nations in terms of strength. That model makes more sense.

[UniversalCommons]

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

+1

Your arguments come across as the language of the Anti Zionist Bridge a communist group inside East Germany who specifically wanted to fulfill the ethnic cleansing of Jews and other peoples. The language is very similar just before World War II. They were the opposition to the fascists which would have completed the ethnic cleansing that Hitler failed to do. Theirs was a dream of a communist regime tied in with Stalin that would have ethnically cleansed the Jews and other groups in a superstate covering the Soviet Union and Europe. The end result would have been a state that would have destroyed far more people than the nazis something akin to the mongol hordes.

It further reinforces that you want to blame people for seeking their rights. It is the language of the kind of leftism which preaches both ethnic cleansing and identity politics. The place where your beliefs are tied to your ethnicity.

It shows a lack of understanding of history. It also reminds me of the kind of language that comes from the modern Sparticist League.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

+1

Your arguments come across as the language of the Anti Zionist Bridge a communist group inside East Germany who specifically wanted to fulfill the ethnic cleansing of Jews and other peoples. The language is very similar just before World War II. They were the opposition to the fascists which would have completed the ethnic cleansing that Hitler failed to do. Theirs was a dream of a communist regime tied in with Stalin that would have ethnically cleansed the Jews and other groups in a superstate covering the Soviet Union and Europe. The end result would have been a state that would have destroyed far more people than the nazis something akin to the mongol hordes.

It further reinforces that you want to blame people for seeking their rights. It is the language of the kind of leftism which preaches both ethnic cleansing and identity politics. The place where your beliefs are tied to your ethnicity.

It shows a lack of understanding of history. It also reminds me of the kind of language that comes from the modern Sparticist League.

Hey? It’s not me... I obviously strongly support Zionism and Jewish people.

[Fedel]

This is actually a valid take I agree with, I still don't believe it justifies asserting one's race simply to create barriers. Only if it helps remove them ( my experience as a black person living in this part of the country under these conditions gives me a deeper understanding on "specific issue" ).

I think the problem is that many people ( non-blacks as well ) consciously confuse the two in order to accumulate power and influence by using an immensely powerful past to stroke passions and channel energy behind specific causes which are often intentionally not what they purport to be about.

There has to be more nuanced treatment here. For example people in the Middle East should definitely be treated as whites or similar. Hence stuff such as their treatment of Sudanese and crimes against East Africans in Zanzibar should be called out since it is no different from West European slavery. On the other hand whatever conflict between people in Europe and the Middle East is just normal inter-Caucasoid conflict since the balance of power does not inherently or historically favor Europe.

I think it's probably not helpful to refer to the ruling majority in a country with a history similar to other ruling majorities as "whites" as it perpetuates divisive stereotypes of white superiority or white people being inherently oppressive as a race similar to labelling any oppressed minority or weaker power as the "blacks" or "Africans" of an area.

Fair enough on the rest of that. I think any ruling majority abusing their inherent power should be called out for it.

Edit: Just saw your edit. Let me respond to that as well.

Similarly we can’t really say whether people in Japan are inherently more or less privileged than people in Poland. Historically there has never been decisive racial advantage in the steppe. Most steppe empires were mixed and terrorized sedentary Caucasoids and Mongoloids alike. You can’t really argue that there was white privilege when Aryans invaded Mongolia and Gansu and that it magically reversed when Huns raided Italy. Then Mongoloid privilege magically appeared when Mongols took Kiev and then white privilege reappeared and became even stronger when Russia reached the Pacific then since Japan appeared it was magically checked at Amur River.

Of course. Inherent power is based on many different factors including; length of time a society exists under such a system, how oppressive the ruling class chooses to be, whether or not separation and division based off of racial status is codified into law, and many many more.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

There has to be more nuanced treatment here. For example people in the Middle East should definitely be treated as whites or similar. Hence stuff such as their treatment of Sudanese and crimes against East Africans in Zanzibar should be called out since it is no different from West European slavery. On the other hand whatever conflict between people in Europe and the Middle East is just normal inter-Caucasoid conflict since the balance of power does not inherently or historically favor Europe.

I think it's probably not helpful to refer to the ruling majority in a country with a history similar to other ruling majorities as "whites" as it perpetuates divisive stereotypes of white superiority or white people being inherently oppressive as a race similar to labelling any oppressed minority or weaker power as the "blacks" or "Africans" of an area.

Fair enough on the rest of that. I think any ruling majority abusing their inherent power should be called out for it.

Sure. But then they intermarry and eventually “white” will be easier to pronounce than “1/4 English, 1/2 German and 1/4 Kurd”. The first generation may reasonably describe themselves as Arab, Russian or Chechen. Eventually this will happen and we will have to use the “white” word.

Why majority though? Minority rule is historically common. In most of the world economic, political and demographic power are often not shared. For example in Grand Duchy of Posen political power belonged to Germans, economic power belonged to Jews and demographic power belonged to Poles. In Ottoman Empire non-Muslims were often richer, yet they feared Muslims.

With people such as Jews and Indians in US power is more divided. However this does not negate the absence of power among black people which is why we should focus on blackness and mistreatment associated with it, not whiteness and whether it has a lot of privileges.

[Cultural Posadism]

Strangely though one way that American society was improving racially and that was partly because people stopped seeing race as the ultimate decider of what a person was, or we did

When?

[Kowani]

Strangely though one way that American society was improving racially and that was partly because people stopped seeing race as the ultimate decider of what a person was, or we did

When?

the same day we all got passports to fairyland

[Fedel]

I think it's probably not helpful to refer to the ruling majority in a country with a history similar to other ruling majorities as "whites" as it perpetuates divisive stereotypes of white superiority or white people being inherently oppressive as a race similar to labelling any oppressed minority or weaker power as the "blacks" or "Africans" of an area.

Fair enough on the rest of that. I think any ruling majority abusing their inherent power should be called out for it.

Sure. But then they intermarry and eventually “white” will be easier to pronounce than “1/4 English, 1/2 German and 1/4 Kurd”. The first generation may reasonably describe themselves as Arab, Russian or Chechen. Eventually this will happen and we will have to use the “white” word.

Why majority though? Minority rule is historically common.

I don't think "white" is a term that should be used in place of "oppressors" as it's naturally going to create division between people with features that the vast majority of humankind perceives as "white" ( most of whom who are not directly responsible for oppression ) and everybody else.

That's fine. Simply the group that wields the most power.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Sure. But then they intermarry and eventually “white” will be easier to pronounce than “1/4 English, 1/2 German and 1/4 Kurd”. The first generation may reasonably describe themselves as Arab, Russian or Chechen. Eventually this will happen and we will have to use the “white” word.

Why majority though? Minority rule is historically common.

I don't think "white" is a term that should be used in place of "oppressors" as it's naturally going to create division between people with features that the vast majority of humankind perceives as "white" ( most of whom who are not directly responsible for oppression ) and everybody else.

That's fine. Simply the group that wields the most power.

Yup and most people in the world rightfully consider Middle Easterners and many Indians white because no matter what WNs think of them they indeed objectively are. That hasn’t made whiter North Indians richer than darker South Indians though.

Power is divided. Please reread my edited post and tell me which power do you care about. I guess it is not demographic. Economic power is tricky since in many societies it is held by a middleman minority who are vulnerable to appropriation and mass murder but generally manage to come back no matter how many massacres happened. Military power usually correlates with political power but that can also be false.

So for example in late Ottoman Empire who were the oppressors? Kurdish militants? Armenian businessmen? Turkish officials? Albanian & Circassian Pashas? See? The Caucasoid-African power dynamic is relatively simple. Most of the world and increasingly even America itself (e.g. are Indian developers less privileged or more privileged than white ones? They both have respective structural advantages) is not like that.