French government denounces American Woke Left

[Celritannia]

And what exactly does the underlined mean, hm?

Deal with them like you would deal like any other threat

Also, how are they a threat exactly, and to whom?

[SD_Film Artists]

All this anti-wokeness has gotten to be pretty ridiculous and stupid.

It's circled back to retroactively justifying wokeness. I mean, it's one thing to think that some ways people talk about "white privilege" are dumb and harmful. It's another to cheer as the government promises to try to suppress any movement that acknowledges racism might exist and the nation's history might have some dark chapters.

That's actually a very centrist view of history which I support. The 'woke' version of history is more like- 'white history is all about empire even if the person is from a country which never had one. Empire is all about slavery and slavery is all about empire. All conquered peoples were pacifists who never attacked anyone, which is why they only developed weapons upon the arrival of Europeans.
Colonialism only counts if it's done with a boat.'
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands used boats but the islanders didn't speak Spanish so it's ok; nevermind silly things like international law or democratic votes.'

[Cultural Posadism]

The 'woke' version of history is more like- 'white history is all about empire even if the person is from a country which never had one. Empire is all about slavery and slavery is all about empire. All conquered peoples were pacifists who never attacked anyone, which is why they only developed weapons upon the arrival of Europeans.
Colonialism only counts if it's done with a boat.'
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands used boats but the islanders didn't speak Spanish so it's ok; nevermind international law or democratic votes.'

This feels like a bit of a strawman but ok.

Also, the invasion of the Falklands was nationalist bullshit. Not colonialist, though. Irredentist.

[SD_Film Artists]

The 'woke' version of history is more like- 'white history is all about empire even if the person is from a country which never had one. Empire is all about slavery and slavery is all about empire. All conquered peoples were pacifists who never attacked anyone, which is why they only developed weapons upon the arrival of Europeans.
Colonialism only counts if it's done with a boat.'
The Argentine invasion of the Falklands used boats but the islanders didn't speak Spanish so it's ok; nevermind international law or democratic votes.'

This feels like a bit of a strawman but ok.

Also, the invasion of the Falklands was nationalist bullshit. Not colonialist, though. Irredentist.

Exaggerations and strawmen are different. It would be a strawman if I accused Posadism of believing it with no evidence.

I say exaggeration, though some people do seem to believe that stuff.

[Vassenor]

This feels like a bit of a strawman but ok.

Also, the invasion of the Falklands was nationalist bullshit. Not colonialist, though. Irredentist.

Exaggerations and strawmen are different.

I say exaggeration, though some people do seem to believe that stuff.

I've not seen anyone suggesting that the Argentine government was right to invade the Falklands in order to deflect public attention from its failings.

[Cultural Posadism]

Exaggerations and strawmen are different.

I say exaggeration, though some people do seem to believe that stuff.

I've not seen anyone suggesting that the Argentine government was right to invade the Falklands in order to deflect public attention from its failings.

There are some Argentine irredentists who glorify the war and go out of their way to whitewash how wrong it was. But those people are right-wing nationalists who have a very forgiving attitude towards our war criminals.

[Celritannia]

Exaggerations and strawmen are different.

I say exaggeration, though some people do seem to believe that stuff.

I've not seen anyone suggesting that the Argentine government was right to invade the Falklands in order to deflect public attention from its failings.

It was the fault of the Americans anyway.
Replacing an elected Socialist President with a fascist dictator.
Operation Condor was pathetic and stupid.

[SD_Film Artists]

I've not seen anyone suggesting that the Argentine government was right to invade the Falklands in order to deflect public attention from its failings.

There are some Argentine irredentists who glorify the war and go out of their way to whitewash how wrong it was. But those people are right-wing nationalists who have a very forgiving attitude towards our war criminals.

Such as Kirchner who contradicts the Captain of the Belgrano when she says that the cruiser was turning back to Argentina and the sinking was a "war crime". In more recent years, she rejected a hand-given letter from the islanders for dialogue, prefering to maintain the Buenos Aires-London talks instead. This then turns into a circular argument as London then asks her to talk to the islanders.

I'm not sure what the current Argentine President's view on it is but I'm guessing that it's not entirely pro-UK since there hasn't been a normalisation of Falklander-Argentine ties; apart from when they do the 'get Argentine citizenship so that we can say there's Argentines on the islands' thing.

Also, the invasion of the Falklands was nationalist bullshit. Not colonialist, though. Irredentist.

It was a traditional land-grab so in a way it was colonial, though when I mentioned 'conialism' earlier I meant people claiming that the Falklands are a UK colony and thus automatically at fault regardless of any historical or democratic facts.

Exaggerations and strawmen are different.

I say exaggeration, though some people do seem to believe that stuff.

I've not seen anyone suggesting that the Argentine government was right to invade the Falklands in order to deflect public attention from its failings.

When the subject comes up the non-Argentine supporters of Argentina come from the same predictable angle of 'but it's a colony so it's bad'. The more informed among them might mention the long distance that the islands are to the UK mainland (forgetting that the semi-independant island government is as close as possible to itself, and the UK's longer historical claim). However the Falklands is admittedly less on-topic as IMO it comes more from the traditional UK left-wing rather than being a 'woke' import. I only mentioned it as it does have some co-opted crossover.

[Vassenor]

Also it turns out that conservative think-tanks are just flat-out inventing deplatformings to fit their narratives.

[Ostroeuropa]

All this anti-wokeness has gotten to be pretty ridiculous and stupid.

It's circled back to retroactively justifying wokeness. I mean, it's one thing to think that some ways people talk about "white privilege" are dumb and harmful. It's another to cheer as the government promises to try to suppress any movement that acknowledges racism might exist and the nation's history might have some dark chapters.

Is that what they are doing though, or are they targetting organizations and movements that espouse a particular view of racism, how it works, what it entails, etc.

You're kind of conflating things here in a manner akin to;

"It retroactively justifies Scientology trying to infiltrate western governments. It's one thing to talk about how they're a harmful cult, it's another to cheer as the government promises to ban all religion ever everywhere.".

That's not what's happening though is it mate.

They're targetting a particular sect that has far outstayed its welcome in society, imposed its views on an unwilling populace for decades, and has spat in the face of their culture, popular consensus, etc, etc. I genuinely would not mind them purging scientologists from institutions when it has become clear what a threat they are to the social order and democratic rule and so on. That doesn't necessitate a purge on all religious folk.

Similarly, I don't mind them purging woke folk from institution and marginalizing them from society and so on. It does not entail a purge of everyone who cares about equality. It simply means that the anti-white, anti-male, anti-western and so on schools of that activity will no longer be legitimized.

Kalitz, 2011 "Classifying political regimes"

"There are two “strong” ways rulers justify why the people should obey them: by the claim that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious right to rule or that they have a God-given natural, historical or religious purpose to rule; or by procedures that guarantee that the people are able to select and control the rulers themselves. There are only two regime types – communist ideocracy and (traditional) monarchy – in which justification relies on a God-given natural/historical law outside the political regime. This is a very strong legitimation, with a clear plan of how society should be structured. Communist regimes and monarchies therefore establish a fixed ruling class – the communist party elite or the aristocracy – which are united by a strong fear that they would dramatically lose their privileges following a regime change. In stark contrast to these ideal regime types, citizens in a liberal democracy are asked to recognize the right of public authority to issue commands, because they have participated in the process wherein those commands originated."

------------

Ostro's Commentary

Firstly let's acknowledge that this is discussing government power structures, but could easily be used to apply to power structures in general.

You may notice that eventually when debating with feminists they justify their power structures and their legitimacy by appeals to "History" akin to how communist regimes did. It is this appeal to patriarchy theory and "Womens historical oppression" that they claim legitimacy for their actions and rule that forms the basis of their worldview, as well as informs their justifications for their power and influence.

We can see how this results in a hierarchical relationship between women and men when put into practice and the amount of unequal treatments it is used to justify. This is because the fundamental structure of feminist theory and feminist power structures are not inclusive as they rest their claims for legitimacy of their actions on "history", not "participation.".

This is partly because feminism cannot hope to rest it's claims on participation as men would not agree to their own subjugation for womens benefit, and partly because including men in the process of deciding what gender equality looks like would radically undermine female privilege as we've seen from their rejection of the mens rights movement and its attempt to demand a participatory regime on these issues.

When you see feminists pull "History" as a justification for present day inequalities they are imposing, you should bare this dynamic in mind. They draw their political legitimacy from this source and it colors their entire worldview, behavior, and perspective, and ensures a negative, authoritarian and unequal outcome precisely because they do not draw their political legitimacy from dialogue, participation, and support. They argue something is equal based on a historical narrative, not broad agreement on what equality looks like. This ensures a minority class becomes necessary to impose this vision and to maintain power through authoritarian means like controls on speech and so on.

Feminists would consider the "5 questions" irrelevant to the legitimacy of their actions or the validity of their power structures.

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”

Organizations that draw their legitimacy from somewhere that cannot answer these questions satisfactorily are not democratic in nature. The debate on whether any such organizations should exist is separate from noting that any such organization is in its essence inegalitarian and cannot reasonably be expected to produce egalitarian outcomes, but only to serve the interests of the class it is suited to serve. For corporations that is the owners, for monarchies it is the monarch and nobility, and for feminism it is feminist academics and women.

This is why their assertion that their understanding of vision on equality is based on "History" is such a problem. It is a means of them asserting an inegalitarian form of legitimacy that sidesteps what should be expected of them, that they draw legitimacy for their understanding of equality through consensus of participants interested in that goal in a manner accountable to those participants.

I am perfectly fine with tearing down an ideocracy and marginalizing its proponents.

When you actually consult people in a participatory manner on what equality looks like, the verdict is in.

Wokeism is racist, sexist, and anti-western.

You would think any left winger worth their salt would be ecstatic with this development. Power to the people and such, and a great victory over sexism, racism, and so on.

[Celritannia]

Wokeism is racist, sexist, and anti-western.

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Also it turns out that conservative think-tanks are just flat-out inventing deplatformings to fit their narratives.

Actual footage of an event conservative think tanks "flat out invented": https://youtu.be/PwFzOW2tZf0

[Vassenor]

Wokeism is racist, sexist, and anti-western.

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

Because it means White Men only control 98% of the world now.

[SD_Film Artists]

Wokeism is racist, sexist, and anti-western.

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

Are you kidding? The woke crowd has been called out so many times on their racism/sexism that they've now moved to changing the definition of racism just so that the goal posts are moved in a convenient way for them.

Also as discussed earlier we can achieve more than one thing at a time; it's not as if only poverty and climate change are allowed to be discussed in NSG or by governments.

[Celritannia]

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

Are you kidding? The woke crowd has been called out so many times on their racism/sexism that they've now moved to changing the definition of racism just so that the goal posts are moved in a convenient way for them.

Also as discussed earlier we can achieve more than one thing at a time; it's not as if only poverty and climate change are allowed to be discussed in NSG or by governments.

Are there problems? Yes.
Is there an entire conspiracy that the "woke" crowd are "destroying" the "white" culture? No.

[SD_Film Artists]

Are you kidding? The woke crowd has been called out so many times on their racism/sexism that they've now moved to changing the definition of racism just so that the goal posts are moved in a convenient way for them.

Also as discussed earlier we can achieve more than one thing at a time; it's not as if only poverty and climate change are allowed to be discussed in NSG or by governments.

Are there problems? Yes.
Is there an entire conspiracy that the "woke" crowd are "destroying" the "white" culture.

'conspiracy' would be too strong a term as that would imply a top-down organised plan, but their double standards towards white heritage is certainly an issue.

Even the term 'white' can be an issue as it ignores the many ethnicities within it as well as Americanising discourse with literally black and white politics.

[Ostroeuropa]

Wokeism is racist, sexist, and anti-western.

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

<_<

Why does that matter at all dude, you're fixated with the labels here rather than bothering to engage the actual point.

I do have a more recent example, but not for native americans. The more recent examples are for whites and europeans.

That's the point being made.

So again;

If you walked up to a native american and said "Why are you voting against your own interests and supporting this nonsense cultural preservation stuff instead of voting for a pay rise for your job at mcdonalds", how many native americans do you think you'd have to ask that to before one punched you?

Good thing I would not ask them that.

>_>

hmmm.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

Because it means White Men only control 98% of the world now.

98%? What exactly is Japan then? What about India?

Let’s be precise. More like 2/3 (including Ashkenazi Jews) and given early West European contribution to tech and modern politics 2/3 are pretty appropriate.

In case you wonder woke statements like that are actually very insulting to some other people but not for the reason they are intended. You are negating the existence of places like Japan and their achievements.

[Vassenor]

Are you kidding? The woke crowd has been called out so many times on their racism/sexism that they've now moved to changing the definition of racism just so that the goal posts are moved in a convenient way for them.

Also as discussed earlier we can achieve more than one thing at a time; it's not as if only poverty and climate change are allowed to be discussed in NSG or by governments.

Are there problems? Yes.
Is there an entire conspiracy that the "woke" crowd are "destroying" the "white" culture? No.

I mean can you explain what white culture is? Clearly a sign the wokeists have purged it from reality.

[Celritannia]

Who hurt you Ostro?
Why do you feel so threatened?
Why is this so important compared to poverty, climate change, etc?

<_<

Good thing I would not ask them that.

>_>

hmmm.

Individual situations must be judged individually.

[Ostroeuropa]

<_<



>_>

hmmm.

Individual situations must be judged individually.

That's a funny way of saying you have a double standard against white people and no consistent opposition to the thing we're discussing.

Why exactly wouldn't you ask a native american that but continually bring it out against whites?

[Celritannia]

Are there problems? Yes.
Is there an entire conspiracy that the "woke" crowd are "destroying" the "white" culture.

'conspiracy' would be too strong a term as that would imply a top-down organised plan, but their double standards towards white heritage is certainly an issue.

But is isn't a major problem or situation.
This whole "wokeness" is pathetic and stupid.

[Celritannia]

Individual situations must be judged individually.

That's a funny way of saying you have a double standard against white people and no consistent opposition to the thing we're discussing.

Why exactly wouldn't you ask a native american that but continually bring it out against whites?

I don't put "white people" in a single category.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Individual situations must be judged individually.

That's a funny way of saying you have a double standard against white people and no consistent opposition to the thing we're discussing.

Why exactly wouldn't you ask a native american that but continually bring it out against whites?

I actually stand with you here haha. Negating European culture is pretty dangerous. There are aspects of it that do not have analogs in Japan yet such as individualism.

[Ostroeuropa]

'conspiracy' would be too strong a term as that would imply a top-down organised plan, but their double standards towards white heritage is certainly an issue.

But is isn't a major problem or situation.
This whole "wokeness" is pathetic and stupid.

Plenty of people disagree.