French government denounces American Woke Left

[Borderlands of Rojava]

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 "people who think China is the good guys cause america opposes them."

[Punished UMN]

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.

You were parroting Gentile and Sorel.

[Fahran]

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'?

I actively have political enemies to my right, UMN. The neocons, the fascists, the neoliberals, the monarchists, etc. And I distance myself from them because it provides greater clarity for my own ideals.

[Punished UMN]

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'?

I actively have political enemies to my right, UMN. The neocons, the fascists, the neoliberals, the monarchists, etc. And I distance myself from them because it provides greater clarity for my own ideals.

I know, for what it's worth, that comment was aimed at Procto and Ostro specifically.

[UniversalCommons]

Really the main objection I see are things like asking for apologies from white people and microaggressions. I never saw anything about concentration camps, prison terms, hangings, and similar things which I see in some of the right wing literature. It is more like 40 acres and a mule than any kind of violent action. The talk is about apologies and equity not death, prison camps and destruction. Having to apologize is more annoying than anything else. The problem with the idea of Woke often encourages not equality, inclusion, and equity, but reparations, apologies, and some bizarre ideas about culture.

I can see the objection to giving people handouts. I don't particularly agree with handouts. However, I do agree with better access to education and services for minorities and policies that promote more equal access to healthcare.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Really the main objection I see are things like asking for apologies from white people and microaggressions. I never saw anything about concentration camps, prison terms, hangings, and similar things which I see in some of the right wing literature. It is more like 40 acres and a mule than any kind of violent action. The talk is about apologies and equity not death, prison camps and destruction. Having to apologize is more annoying than anything else. The problem with the idea of Woke often encourages not equality, inclusion, and equity, but reparations, apologies, and some bizarre ideas about culture.

I can see the objection to giving people handouts. I don't particularly agree with handouts. However, I do agree with better access to education and services for minorities and policies that promote more equal access to healthcare.

We need to help whoever needs the help. Instead of focusing on this specific idea of "slave reparations," we ought to have a better social safety net for America as a whole.

[Ostroeuropa]

I actively have political enemies to my right, UMN. The neocons, the fascists, the neoliberals, the monarchists, etc. And I distance myself from them because it provides greater clarity for my own ideals.

I know, for what it's worth, that comment was aimed at Procto and Ostro specifically.

I have enemies to the right when they undermine mens issues.

[Fahran]

I can see the objection to giving people handouts. I don't particularly agree with handouts. However, I do agree with better access to education and services for minorities and policies that promote more equal access to healthcare.

I don't think the objection French academics or most people here have is with the notion that we should do more to integrate and benefit racial and ethnic minorities. It's with the broad paradigm some folks use to arrive at that conclusion and a lot of the toxic cultural quirks that arise from that paradigm and from bigoted attitudes in such closed groups more generally. Nobody wants to be treated like garbage, like a pariah, or like their identity and experiences don't matter, even if they're privileged by the existing social system. It's asinine and gaslighting to take that as a sign that they're fragile or reactionary. If wokeness was more about conversations and education instead of scoring points, people wouldn't dislike it nearly as much. That's the problem though. The demand for allyship, understanding, and empathy without anything approaching reciprocity. The insistence that they can be as vile to anyone as they want with the expectation that the person in question will behave with some semblance of decorum and STILL be awful.

[Proctopeo]

...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'?

Problem here is, UMN, in this case these proponents aren't really "fringe" or "extreme"; they're significant enough in size, legitimacy, and influence that they can't simply be written off without being actively dishonest.

Now, tell me, do Ostro and I actually believe in "no enemies to the right", or are you just making shit up?

[Ostroeuropa]

>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.

When you get with the more self-aware ones they tend to argue that this trend vindicates their view that reality is demographic conflict and that it is inescapable. Appealing to them on the basis of it being undesirable gets replies that it doesn't matter if its undesirable, it's reality and they are reacting accordingly.

[Nilokeras]

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

Ah yes the Kentucky House of Representatives, notably bastion of the left

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

'so you acknowledge that it's possible that Chapo Trap House are actually agents of the lizard machine god sent here to normalize hating the taste of marshmallow fluff'

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.

This is getting more nonsensical as it goes on. Are we in 1924? Is this just an expression of your thing for men with moustaches? What does any of this have to do with the fact that the fascist was applauding your blood and soil spiritualist nationalist rhetoric?

[Ostroeuropa]

Ah yes the Kentucky House of Representatives, notably bastion of the left

Finding an exception does not negate the trend.

'so you acknowledge that it's possible that Chapo Trap House are actually agents of the lizard machine god sent here to normalize hating the taste of marshmallow fluff'

That's a curious deflection that seems to imply you think it is not possible.

This is getting more nonsensical as it goes on. Are we in 1924? Is this just an expression of your thing for men with moustaches?

My point is that fascists pointing out a disturbing and undesirable trend on the left does not make it definitionally untrue. They can be bang on the money in their criticism. This is in fact a common theme with fascists. They're very good at criticizing flaws in society and other movements. It's just that they then propose utter nonsense as a solution.

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the fascist was applauding your blood and soil spiritualist nationalist rhetoric?

This is merely the same thing again. You seem to think that having *any point of agreement* with a fascist is terrible and by definition bad. It has led you to some truly bizarre places ideologically.

As I said earlier, if a fascist says the sky is blue, do you think it must be red?

[Punished UMN]

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'?

Problem here is, UMN, in this case these proponents aren't really "fringe" or "extreme"; they're significant enough in size, legitimacy, and influence that they can't simply be written off without being actively dishonest.

Now, tell me, do Ostro and I actually believe in "no enemies to the right", or are you just making shit up?

To paraphrase Stalin: "How many divisions have the Woke got?"

I've seen you guys make a big ado about woke people but I rarely recall you guys actively denouncing, even if not out of your way, the authoritarian or violent actions of right wingers.

[Punished UMN]

I know, for what it's worth, that comment was aimed at Procto and Ostro specifically.

I have enemies to the right when they undermine mens issues.

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

[Mannixa Prime]

I wish people would stop referring to the “woke” as “leftist”

They are just neoliberals who drape themselves in the rainbow flag

[Nilokeras]

Finding an exception does not negate the trend.

I rather get the feeling I can hang around all day finding 'exceptions' and you'd still say there was a trend.

That's a curious deflection that seems to imply you think it is not possible.

I'm saying it's a nonsensical proposition to begin with.

My point is that fascists pointing out a disturbing and undesirable trend on the left does not make it definitionally untrue. They can be bang on the money in their criticism.

And yet you're totally not fash, you swear.

This is in fact a common theme with fascists. They're very good at criticizing flaws in society and other movements. It's just that they then propose utter nonsense as a solution.

My dude, x number of pages ago you were waxing poetic about the need for mythology to galvanize the spirit of the people or something. You seem to think it's less nonsense than you're putting on.

[SD_Film Artists]

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'?

I actively have political enemies to my right, UMN. The neocons, the fascists, the neoliberals, the monarchists, etc. And I distance myself from them because it provides greater clarity for my own ideals.

Wait, that's my call!

Do I have to do something especially dastardly to be an "enemy"? Also I'm not so sure about the "active" part. I do a good amount of cardio but I think I love my gaming chair too much to be considered an 'active enemy'.

*walks off to scheme monarchist schemes*

[Ostroeuropa]

I have enemies to the right when they undermine mens issues.

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

I have never said we need unity.
My advocacy for mens issues is derived from my fundamental principle of equality and my evaluation that my efforts are best spent on maximizing the advancement of mens interests at this time. That may change in future.

[Fahran]

Is this just an expression of your thing for men with moustaches?

Young Stalin though. :^)

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the fascist was applauding your blood and soil spiritualist nationalist rhetoric?

Oof. Do you just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of parroting fascist rhetoric?

[Labbos]

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.

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?

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. 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.

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

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

[Proctopeo]

Problem here is, UMN, in this case these proponents aren't really "fringe" or "extreme"; they're significant enough in size, legitimacy, and influence that they can't simply be written off without being actively dishonest.

Now, tell me, do Ostro and I actually believe in "no enemies to the right", or are you just making shit up?

To paraphrase Stalin: "How many divisions have the Woke got?"

A scrumptious non-answer.

I've seen you guys make a big ado about woke people but I rarely recall you guys actively denouncing, even if not out of your way, the authoritarian or violent actions of right wingers.

That doesn't mean as much as you think it does. I do not believe in "no enemies to the right"; but as it happens, these enemies in the US political sphere are irrelevant and discredited, and I don't see it as worthwhile to virtue signal against a few dozen fascist LARPers just to appease some authlefts on the Internet.

In an international context, I have mentioned displeasure with authoritarian right-wing governments, even as they undertake actions that may be considered positive (such as Poland going against Big Tech).

I have enemies to the right when they undermine mens issues.

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

That's a pretty false assessment of Ostro's actual positions. He could serve to express them better, but I've picked up enough from him to know this isn't true.

I wish people would stop referring to the “woke” as “leftist”

They are just neoliberals who drape themselves in the rainbow flag

It's a mixture of both, in my experience.

[Punished UMN]

Yeah, so you're a proponent of identity politic, and the rhetoric about how we need unity and all that is meant to mask that your fundamental concern is with securing the place of your in-group, and not with a fundamental principle of equality. Your in-group is men and the out-group is women, and you have drawn a friend-enemy distinction between the two.

I have never said we need unity.
My advocacy for mens issues is derived from my fundamental principle of equality and my evaluation that my efforts are best spent on maximizing the advancement of mens interests at this time. That may change in future.

And given that this is the case, it is fair to view those who wish to replace a positive national mythology and narrative that espouses the values of the nation and so on, with a negative, critical, and destructive one that sows division among its members.

[Ostroeuropa]

Finding an exception does not negate the trend.

I rather get the feeling I can hang around all day finding 'exceptions' and you'd still say there was a trend.

That's a curious deflection that seems to imply you think it is not possible.

I'm saying it's a nonsensical proposition to begin with.

My point is that fascists pointing out a disturbing and undesirable trend on the left does not make it definitionally untrue. They can be bang on the money in their criticism.

And yet you're totally not fash, you swear.

This is in fact a common theme with fascists. They're very good at criticizing flaws in society and other movements. It's just that they then propose utter nonsense as a solution.

My dude, x number of pages ago you were waxing poetic about the need for mythology to galvanize the spirit of the people or something. You seem to think it's less nonsense than you're putting on.

1. The trend that when the left takes an institution, these things emerge? By all means. Find an exception. Don't point to an institution in control of the right, because that isn't the discussion.

2. How is it nonsensical?

3. Do you think philosophytube and contrapoints and so on are fascists too? They concur with this assessment of fascists.

4. I do not believe demographic conflict is the unavoidable state of nature. I don't like militarism. I like democracy. I don't like government intervention in peoples private lives. But because I think national mythology is important, I'm fascist.

*rolls eyes*.

[Punished UMN]

Is this just an expression of your thing for men with moustaches?

Young Stalin though. :^)

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the fascist was applauding your blood and soil spiritualist nationalist rhetoric?

Oof. Do you just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of parroting fascist rhetoric?

Ostro did exactly that though like two days ago.

[Fahran]

My point is that fascists pointing out a disturbing and undesirable trend on the left does not make it definitionally untrue. They can be bang on the money in their criticism. This is in fact a common theme with fascists. They're very good at criticizing flaws in society and other movements. It's just that they then propose utter nonsense as a solution.

It's a theme with all Hegelians really. :^)