This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wokeness, victimhood and how right wing associated groups "not caring" about being victimized makes you non woke.
This is such a common claim especially here that it deserves to be addressed in general.
What is wokeness about? Its simply the ideology, of lbierals, leftists and those fake conservatives that have been colonized by this ideology that denies any level of legitimate victimhood to its right wing outgroup (the epitome of it would be right wing white christian straight men) and promotes excessive rights and victimhood for its left wing associated ingroup. That frames the left wing ingroup as permanent legitimate oppressed and right wing outgroup as illegitimate oppressors who can never challenge the status of the first.
Its what the ADL, Soros pushes. Both pushing the mantra of white christians as threats to minorities and promoting an onesided hateful narrative and discriminatory policies including totalitarianism and dracognian very one sided hateful hate speech laws. And of course supporting mass migration because it would lead to the extinction of their ethnic outgroup. And do not allow dissent from this mantra and in fact portray all dissent as white supremacy.
Wokeness has plenty of common with certain extreme nationalists of every type and obviously with not only religious Judaism, but the ideological extreme that retains aspects of religious judaism the secular combo of progressive extremism and Jewish ultranationalism has been one of the most key parts of it. And various fellow travelers of that. The one that denies Jews any blame whatsoever on how they treat others except perhaps other intersectional tribes and does not allow any negativity and frames it as antisemitism. Since this is the biggest taboo, I find it important to focus upon it more and I would focus upon a different tribe if I gotten there more pushback. If you are SJW only for the Jews then you are still part of this especially since powerful Jewish organisations like the ADL are important players.
When even Fox News attacks Musk when he tells jewish organisations to knock it off with their antiwhite racism, and entirely denies this you know that the end result of Fox News influence is not going to bring things to jewish organizations with this ideology knocking it off. End of wokeness should mean end of the narrative of the eternally oppressed Jews who should now as lord ordains rule others. This ideology should not be tolerated and Jews should adjust their religious and secular self conception to abadon it. People of any faith can still believe in their religion but should respect the rights of others. If this means their Christianity, Judaism, Islam lacks a certain vision of conquest that existed in the original text, then so be it. And this applies to those supposed secular atheists who seem to have retained aspects of the religion, relating to excessive nationalism.
Are right wing related identitarians like white identitarians then woke? Well, no because they have a different who/whom. It is possible for them to be equally extreme to be similar but not necessarily the case.
Are all victimhood related arguements woke and only abandoning the issue makes one antiwoke?
Not again. Victimhood is actually directly related to justice. Recognizing accurately victims is a necessary component of justice. Excessive victimhood for the ingroup and 0 victimhood for the outgroup is of course injustice and why the woke are unjust. Its what every criminal wants, to get maximum sympathy and get away with it and their legitimate victims to not be seen as victims. And this is why you are part of the woke if you argue like the woke, for zero victimhood for the right wing outgroups.
The argument that the only antiwoke way is to not recognize rights and to concern troll right wing associated groups to not care by people who are in fact sensationalized towards right wing racism is preposterous. We know this argument isn't promoted in good faith for those who subscribe to it don't have a stance of never caring about victimhood ever, nor are they tolerant to what would seem as hardcore right wing racism. More than that, you see this political coalition be sensationalized in opposition of left wing associated victimhood proponents like MLK and civil rights movement even though that movement too like modern woke had its element of seeking excess. MLK argued that USA should treat blacks especially better for having treated them in the past especially bad and used both pressure of sit ons and threat of violent protests to demand that organisations upped black representation considerably treating it as evidence of racism where blacks were underepresented. Lyndon Johnson also considered Herbert Marcuse influence as very important to the civil rights act. key civil rights remaining figures have promoted this party line and with their activism caused multiple race riots too. Modern wokeness is a continuation and part of the progressive hued "rights" movements of the past who had all these elements there too.
If you have a completely hagiographic attitude to said movements, yes you are way is the way of the woke.
Victimhood politics for any tribe tends to increase sympathy for them and can reduce sympathy for others. This is why a political environment where certain tribes are sacred cows and other tribes have no victimhood, is one that will inevitably be extremely racist in favor of first and at expense of the later. The racist hateful people who promote this hateful dogma then pretend to be antiracist and slander others which is an additional injustice.
Concern trolling right wingers and identity politics of the right wing outgroup is wokeness 101 and those who do it are part of it. It is blatant racism to oppose people being opposed to racism because "victimhood politics" i.e. opposing you being victimized is "woke". Such distortion of reality is amazing to witness.
Another false claim I have seen even by right wingers is that adopting the mentality of the woke for your own group would be ethnomasochistic. But the woke are not masochists, they are extreme identitarians and they have gotten plenty of what they want. You could oppose being exactly the same, although some level of tribalism for your tribe too is obviously justifiable and complete lack does not lead to justice but you being preyed upon. The primary arguement against being as selfcentered as the woke would be that is an unjust dishonest mentality and the second arguement that it causes unecessary conflict and the third that it is paperclip maximizing dominance over other things that matters. That is that the woke way is the way where their end point is racist supremacy and their boot over others face, which is both a bad end and results in conflict and could wreck civilization.
I guess one could oppose intersectionality right wing style too on basis that it makes compromises with other tribalisms.
Also, if your group is being mistreated, noticing and opposing this is actually promoting justice and can not be opposed on the primary problems that wokeness has that a) its unjust b) that it alienates unnecessarily others and causes conflict in that way c) that it is a totalitarian vision that never ends that is indifferent and leaves no space for other important considerations.
There is a title for people who support racism against Christians or white people and oppose any opposition. Of course, I personally have a less strict definition of racism. I don't consider all restrictions of any kind racism. I believe we should act in line with reality. In fact I consider say migration restrictions to be anti-racist and mass migration anti nativist racism that leads to genocidal colonization as one example. Just like I consider property rights to be less classist in the ways that matter than a marxist society even though the marxist considers the first classist and his attempt to destroy the class enemy as end of classism.
Plus, I don't aknowledge that some of the things that people whining about isms are problems we should give a fuck about and can be good too, while in a consistent manner other things that might fall under this label are serious problems relating to injustice (treating others unfairly). For example, it is admirable for parents to care about their children first and put effort to raising them right and not Kin-ist and unfair to other children, but it would be evil if for the sake of your family and children having a bigger property you stole your neighbor's house or behaved like a mafia, became Walter White supposedly to provide for your family. I guess in this manner I also oppose this idea from some on the right that there is no such thing as racism, although I approve not taking seriously all the things in a very one sided manner that are called racism which ironically would make you a racist at your own expense, if you did take them seriously. I do think it is foolish not to prioritise the most pervasive racism of our time, especially when right wing associated legitimate grievances are denied by the use of all sorts of dirty tactics. When it isn't this type of concern trolling, the typical other way is to put a smear label of far right, or worse.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that unfortunately for right wingers who want to be exactly like the woke and not be called unjust, that this type of one sided fanaticism would be unjust for any tribe. Any right wing tribalism is not like the woke however, as it can be of a moderate form and pushes back at it in our current political environment where we have excessive tribalism for progressive stack tribes and too little for right wing associated groups. We don't live in a society where even most real right wingers demand that any left wing tribalism is abadoned, in fact you see even them often compromising with opposing real victimization of left wing associated groups and compromising with respecting identification of left wing associated tribes with left wing associated broader tribes of religious, racial, and ethnic nature.
There can be gray areas. What isn't a grey area are massive double standards and a greedy totalitarian mentality of the woke. Who would never have had the success they have if they were just a few kids at college. The concern trolling the right wing outgroup so that it doesn't promote victimhood by opposing racism at its expense is directly a very key part of wokeness and it is a mistake to buy into the self identification as non woke of those who with their influence are promoting this ideology and at best inconsistently promote limited hangouts. Those concern trolling the right wing outgroup should be more honest and say that they are racists.
What should be done about the woke movement? Well plenty can be written, to keep things for once short, I would say that as wokes abuse their power and use both goverment and private institutions to impose their ideology, screwing principles, law, precedent, that the way to go is to ban their NGOs, which includes ethnic supremacist organisations of left wing associated tribes too, not just general left wing organizations, and to not allow the woke to run any institutions and to be intolerant towards their ideology from the perspective I promote here that it is a fundamentally unjust ideology due to excess tribalism for ingroup and lack of due consideration for the group rights of the outgroup, that is no respect for tribalism of the outgroup. And treat all individual branches of the tree the same. The goal should be to stop this ideology from being enacted and to deradicalize people so they abandon it.
'legitimate victimhood?'
Are you like, the edgy version of the Republican boomer that says 'Democrats are the real racists?' 'Wokes are the real oppressors?'
If you define wokeness by that parameter it means on some level you've functionally accepted the priors of critical theory and therefore are not particularly based in any aspect. Cringe indeed.
More options
Context Copy link
You've accumulated a lot of reports on this post, and it annoys me that I had to read through this wall of text to parse out the arguments you are making.
Essentially all you've posted is a tribalistic screed. Making an argument that boils down to "My enemies are evil" is just culture warring. You hit all the old classics - Jews, MLK, Herbert Marcuse - but here and in the comments below you basically poison-pill the discussion because anyone who questions your priors or your definitions is just part of "woke."
This is a bad post that barely makes a coherent argument. There are ways to write essays about how evil your enemies are that actually make arguable points and present things to discuss. This is just fist-pounding.
I'm going to refer to this post in the future when people say "All you have to do to not get modded on the Motte is be verbose." This is an example of a very long, verbose, arguably even "effortful" post that is still crappy and low value.
Of course there is a coherent argument there.
Which is that concern trolling the outgroup that it should not show victimhood is promoting injustice for X and Y and Z reasons. Because recognising victimhood accurately is a core component of justice and the progressive extremist movement has denied this to the outgroup and promoted excessive for the ingroup. And then explaining how this movement has operated historically with all its components.
It is a gross misrepresentation to claim that my post boils to claiming my outgroup is evil and I don't make a coherent argument. I explain why this movement has been unjust in this manner. It might not be the argument you would like, especially because you fit with said progressive movement of having double stadnards and have consistently promoted the victimhood of the progressive ingroup and downplayed of the progressive outgroup. Hence your attack and denunciation.
There are plenty of groups that I have disliked throughout the years and been critical off. Progressive extremists/woke are one of them but I have been willing to be critical to right wing groups showing the same extremism although of course i consider it a mistake to prioritize this in the current circumstances. I even qualified and been consistent of it that restraint is a key part.
This idea of "hating on the outgroup" is an excuse for authoritarianism from you ironically who hates your outgroup of course and you certainly have been very willing to hate on those not sharing your progressive politics often enough. Its a way to undermine any valid criticism to promote a limited hangout for the progressive extremist movement. The suffocating constraints of the political commissars, the Amandabs of this world is how we reached the current situation.
The progressive extremism that needs to be condemned and not tolerated is a harmful movement, that we would benefit from its sharp criticism and it been replaced in influence by a more moderate ideology that lacks its one sided tribalism for their favorite groups and their complete disregard for respecting the group rights, and the groups it self that they deem as oppressors. That is the truth, and also what is just, no matter how you try to spin it.
Your insults and slander were expected and mean nothing to me.
** By the way I am disappointed not in you, but in someone else here not addressing the central claim about since wokeness does not respect any victimhood for the outgroup and promotes excessive victimhood for the ingroup, justice requires to actually respect victimhood for right wing associated groups. Because the pervasive concern trolling and arguments I have seen here and elsewhere was against promoting victimhood for right wing associated groups. If I am making a valid point, it would be nice to see someone aknowledge it for a change, and if they disagree on the substance, I would like to see where it is the error in the logic. But it is easier to just condemn as a way to support your extremist faction.
Yeah, that's what I mean. "Everyone who disagrees with me is just in the enemy camp, hater!" is not how you argue here.
I doubt you can accurately describe my politics. I hate few people and like a lot of people who very much do not share my politics.
I am not insulting you, I am telling you that you need to improve your manner of posting. This should mean something to you because repeated warnings for this type of boo outgroup ranting may result in a loss of posting privileges.
This is hypocritical when you attacked me here in such a vicious manner as being hateful for disagreeing with you about the progressive movement and arguing that the woke movement and those who concern the outgroup are unjust.
There are factions that have negative influence that I am going to be critical towards. If you want me to be pro woke, that isn't going to happen. And yes, of course the mainstream liberals have treated their outgroups as the enemy. To demand that I then treat those who follow that politics as non woke, is to demand to distort reality to your satisfaction. It matters what are the pervasive politics of dominant movements. Why should I lie about the civil rights movement? About the ADL? About George Soros? About any of that?
If the truth sounds terrible in your ears, then you probably should react less and try to learn more, and show some respect to your outgroup that you hate and vilified in your mind for bringing valid points that are taboo to your prejudices.
Your reaction has been a blatant attempt at character assassination and censorship because you judged negativity against woke and progressive extremists and deeming it a bad faction that shouldn't have pervasive influence as "hating the outgroup".
I provided arguments and explained why concern trolling the outgroup and not allowing victimhood for it and promoting excessive for your favorite left wing groups is in line with wokeness.
Instead of arguing in favor of your ideology you try censorship.
You are hardly an independent party to this when you have done yourself what I argued against which is to promote with fanaticism excessively the victimhood for your ingroups and downplay strongly the victimhood of your rightwing outgroups. You abuse your mod position to advance your political agenda. It is not an improvement of my manner of posting to distort the facts so I promote a more positive picture of those who concern troll the right wing outgroup, or promote a more positive picture of the progressive movements or particular branches of it that you are especially sympathetic towards and are even more authoritarian and SJW about.
You might be trying to play a political game where you try to advance certain agenda where the only space that is treated as legitimate is the one of the limited hangout of progressive extremism that still has its double standards, still censorious to opposition and promote claims "that there are no woke people in the motte", but that is promoting a lie. I am not going to pretend that we are dealing with a few kids at college, and that the progressive movement has not been this. But the core substance of my post has been about an arguement that you want to silence, which has been of substance, that concern trolling the right wing outgroup is blatant racism.
Your demands for censorship and for others to say what you want, else you will slander, hate them and censor them is a part of the problem of what the world is facing today. Many Amandabs working within different institutions have brought things to the current point.
Your politics are not a mystery and you are certainly a hateful and rude poster who abuses their moderator position to get away with insulting and being rude against others. And certainly more so with the progressive slant you have against non progressives. You also use the tactic of slandering and denouncing others to win arguments by pretending that posts that include work to substantiate claims are inherently without value.
Clearly, you are insecure about your idea you constantly promote of your moral superiority and moral inferiority of the people you argue with that you typically insult and call all sorts of names, often some sort of racist.
Someone like you can't cope with those who don't respect and accept your false framing of the moral hierarchy, which is why you make an inadequate referee if the goal is to promote something even handed. You know which includes saying things you don't want to hear, that contest the falsity of the morality of those who concern the right wing outgroup and have such double standards as you also have, and are therefore obviously an unjust, cruel faction if one bothers to analyze it. But for the role you do have, you do fit quite well.
So, almost everything you just said is wrong. You're allowed to be wrong. What you're not allowed to do here is be insulting and engage in personal attacks. Take heed of that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It ain’t slander if it’s true, comrade.
I mean you are an ADL supporter who supports hate speech laws and have never gotten any beef with it from any moderator for it. It is fair to bring it up when you post here to attack me.
Obviously you take the negativity towards the woke for their racist extremism and its hypocrisy personally because you do share that ideology and you resent the valid criticism and want to silence it as this movement has always done.
I mean I am an IRL reactionary and agree with both netstack and amadan. You authored an extremely long and incoherent post that does little except bash the outgroup.
I have had the exact opposite opinion about you being a reactionary poster both here and when I read your posts in the other forum. Plus we got in a fight in the past over the Israel issue.
Look, if I work to make arguments and you people just throw incoherent, "booing the outgroup" and other insults, you don't give anything of value to work with, because there is none.
Part of this is a complete lack of charity and the most insanely unfair criticism. If you want me to be more concice that is one thing.
My general impression of this forum and motte before it (I lurked here before posting) has always been that a decent amount of people here are the same as any reddit with their groupthink and attacking right wingers. Just unpleasant vicious intolerant extremists hating on those who they don't see as part of their political tribe with a few exceptions they learned to tolerate. And trying to abuse all dirty tricks in the book to enforce groupthink and destroy discussion.
Which is to be expected when majority are liberals and is an offshoot of the rationalist blog. The mainstream of liberalism and prevailing sentiments among what one sees among rationalists are full of these mentalities. Get off your high horse.
Plus, maybe you found an opportunity of allowed person to attack. Again, I have seen this mentality from you people to be vicious and shit towards others, and I really see no point in treating it as having anything of value.
Its cowardly conformism through and through. Congrats on the quality discussion of ideas that several people who have deliberately promoted stupified discussions that ignored the obvious, have oh so randomly chosen to focus upon, over actual arguments of issues directly addressed relating to the culture war. Insulting me is you managing to discuss the culture war productively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s an ad hominem, baby! That means I win!
Why should supporting hate speech laws deserve “beef?” If this community just banned people for endorsing bad ideas, we’d still be on Reddit, because 95% of our users would be gone. Instead, the Motte aims to allow the most degenerate, reactionary, humanist, traditional, secular, surreal opinions.
The catch is that the rules favor playing defense. Why? Because, by default, it’s easier to start fires than to put them out. And the psychology of tribalism means that it’s more immediately rewarding, too. A community which adds no extra incentives will tend towards flames. Thus, we added rules to penalize hasty or nebulous attacks.
I play a lot of defense. I also think the community does a pretty good job policing. This is not a coincidence.
Dude, you attacked me and then you claim to play defense and try to frame it as you being someone motivated to reduce inflammatory claims when it isn't true.
This dishonest game of defecting and then pretending you never defect and just spin after spin, might have something to do with why people have a problem with your faction.
One man's boo the outgroup that is negative towards the progressive movement and wokeness ADL, Soros, civil rights movements or even the behavior of Jewish establishment and tries to articulate it is the other person's tolerance of bad ideas when they hate white supremacists, white identitarians, right wing identitarianism, support hate speech, or even dehumanizing the palestinians and approving of attrocities against them and so on.
People are allowed here to concern troll right wing identity politics and they are not vilifying the outgroup but we are not allowed to argue that this is racist. Nor that it leads inevitably and promoted by a faction that we see in practice tolerate or outright themselves promote excessive victimhood for the ingroup. Nor to connect it with the progressive identitarian movements in general, and to argue against them all.
Because this isn't merely an idea, but "booing the outgroup"! Conversely the people here who think the other side are racists like you do are not booing the outgroup! So one side has carte blache to vilify the opposition and spin it self as good, lets call them the progressive side that tries to put sometimes a bit of limited hangout. That can include in it the Bill Maher types. This side consistently frames the opposition to it as racist. Even more so certain branches of it. A direct opposition is not allowed, but I guess if you accept some of the progressive's framing that tribalism for the right wing side and victimhood is bad period, maybe you would be allowed some space... But not if you directly oppose it as a bad ideology and argue that it would be good for society if it lost influence, even if you qualify it to think that equal racist supremacist movement on the right wing dominating would also be bad.
Maybe just maybe you who supports censoring your opposition and aligns with the progressive stack movement are trying to censor your opposition.
Reddit is another forum that was ruined by left wing pro progressive stack anti right wing moderation and those who run it also pretended that this was reddit just banning people who break the rules and right wingers break the rules more.
Personally, I think speaking truth to power and criticizing sacred cows and movements that have captured power and vilify and mistreat classes of people, based on false dogmas is necessary. As someone who has studied the history of your movement, I know of the consistent viciousness that they close ranks and has treated any dissent and enforced conformism. It is why it is especially important for people faced with the demand for struggle sessions to not be discouraged when dealing with such people. They should know with what they are dealing with.
Conversely, there is something both cowardly and obscene with siding with groups like the ADL and left wing establishment as they abuse their power to enforce lies and punish dissent, and discriminate, harm and vilify their ethnic and right wing outgroups. Whether in the most overt manner. Or in the slightly more indirect manner of their protectors and fellow travelers who demand that they are allowed to defect, align and support this but for us to pretend that this isn't the case. That demand that any treatment of this phenomenon is wishy washy, of course.
But somehow this concern trolling doesn't exist when it comes to clearer denouncation of right wing historically more pervasively seen racist supremacist movements, or ages. Nobody will be treated to vilify the outgroup if they argue that Jim Crow was anti black, but it sensationalizes as boo outgroup to call MLK and his movement as antiwhite. To attack the KKK does not sensationalize instead of the much more relevant ADL or George Soros which does sensationalize you. To attach dissident right wing identitarians somehow doesn't result in accusations of vilifying the outgroup. Hell, even when I argue that Jim Crow age was anti-black, there is no care in the world.
The daft utopian dogma that condemning as bad particular factions is evil and intolerable (which vilifies those accused of doing it) is obviously not enforced consistently but concern trolling the outgroup. I am also not aware of any society that it has existed and enforced consistently.
Both you who are more transparent at it, and obviously Amadan and others of this mentality want submission to your false and blatantly prejudiced ideological vision of who are the good guys (who ought not be criticized) and who are the bad guys (which you are allowed to sharply criticize) and hide under platitudes of people "booing their outgroup".
All right, this is a thread full of personal attacks after personal attacks at basically everyone who argues with you. Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is a vicious, racist woke.
I'm also starting to agree with the folks who suspect you're using ChatGPT to generate these screeds. Many of the things you say have no actual connection to what the person you're responding to said.
Stop fucking around. You're banned for three days, and it will be longer/permanent if you just bounce back in to do the same thing.
It seems to me more like the manifestation of mental illness, sadly.
More options
Context Copy link
Feels more like it's earnest but bad output as opposed to chatgpt, it just doesn't feel like chatgpt's cadence or grammar? But maybe it's prompted with that style or something idk. Not sure. (edit: either way, good decision)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I tried to read the whole thing, I really did, but my eyes glazed over around the time you tried to use Jewish advocacy as the type specimen for wokeness.
I’m sure it’s not quite fair to summarize the rest of your post as “ethnic favoritism is immoral, except when I like the people involved,” but you’re not making it easy. There’s so much Russell conjugation. And what do you even mean by “racism against Christians?” I think your argument would have been a lot more clear if you’d tabooed the words “racism” and “antiracism” rather than holding on to them as boo-lights.
More options
Context Copy link
King's era was, I would argue, of a considerably different social climate than today, and to suggest his aim (or the SCLC's aim at the time) was simply trying to "up" black representation (and you make it sound as if black representation was both fine at the time and that this was the only problem--as opposed to, for example, segregated schools, water fountains, churches, lunch counters, and a general caste system with blacks at the very bottom simply because they were black). The mid century US wasn't the same as it had been 100 years earlier, but it was pretty damn racist, particularly where I am from, the deep south.
Anyway possibly you weren't implying what I inferred from your quick gloss of MLK, but that certainly jarred.
It wasn't what I implied, so you shouldn't claim that it was. MLK was an antiwhite racist. If he opposed any antiblack racism that existed then too, doesn't change the fact that he was an antiwhite racist.
Also, MLK assumed all disparities were due to discrimination. There is also MLK's immoral personal conduct. https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
Well, establishing how much racist against blacks that society really was and how far "seperate but equal" worked in practice would be an interesting question. My view is that it was anti-black and the so called civil right movement opposed that but they exaggerated how much the problem was pervasive with their assumptions of all disparities due to racism and their goal and what they tried to do and did succeed was to change the system into pro black and anti-white. The aspects of the woke agenda was there with them all along. One must also not forget all the riots and violence too.
Fundamentally all progressive "civil rights" movements have been a scam precisely due to this fact of not seeking an honorable end. The general scam about them being about opposing racism and sexism (or misogyny). The same applies with feminism and the other isms, too.
Does this imply that such movements can never have any legitimate grievances? No.They can have them at the start, but as they win, that doesn't apply. And even from the start there is a distortion of history and seeking extreme ends.
If these movements don't succeed in behaving in a sufficiently restrained manner, they should be condemned for that. It has been long overdue, and if it was more pervasive we wouldn't have the excesses in the directions that the so called civil rights movement wanted.
The leftist activist climate has a lot of continuity. Things aren't as different as it might seem.
I did say it was my inference, but okay. I see. Well, I disagree with almost all of what you're saying here so I don't feel I'm erring too much in dismissing your other conclusions.
Do you have a valid reason to disagree, or is it just due to partisan bias in favor of progressive movements, no matter how extreme? There is a great continuity in rhetoric. MLK's own rhetoric and of his movement was about giving blacks special treatment in their favor. He was for reparations.
His quote:
What I said about his personal conduct is backed up and you can find the evidence of his democratic socialist biographer in the link I posted.
Quoting from that:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-sordid-legacy-of-dr-king/
You can also find in addition to that link even leftists arguing how MLK supported reparations, which he did. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-10-27-mn-58503-story.html
We know that the civil rights act did not satisfy MLK who kept pushing for reparations and the mantra of USA as a racist country that must pay back, and also he kept seeking more representation for blacks, even where they were not discirminated for their race. Then he died, and the rest of this movement, including key players brought things in the direction things has been brought towards so the movement remained and can be judged.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/martin-luther-king-jr-reparations-ados-i-have-a-dream-20200118.html https://www.christiantoday.com/article/martin.luther.king.jr.and.the.question.of.reparations/137794.htm https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/would-mlk-support-reparations-today/625124/
If you look at feminism, you will find the extremism in the radicals of decades before too. And so on, and so forth.
Can you clarify what your thesis is exactly? That those progressive movements have been antiracist? That is falsified by what they have been agitating towards and what they have done. We live in a world of double standards and one sided hatred in the pro progressive direction and without even allowing representation for the identity interests of the target groups. Where people are blamed for oppressing those who they don't oppress, while the systemic injustice is the other way around.
And of course the marxist movement that there was also a lot of crossover with the other progressive movements itself has had a horrible track record in showing restraint and attaining actual justice.
King's affairs were well-documented, though the "watching a rape and laughing" bit is new to me and I'd probably want a bit more in the way of substantiation. Regardless, I am not holding up MLK as a bastion of morality and did not suggest that I was. What I am suggesting is that hindsight is easier than foresight, and to attribute as intention the many missteps of both the civil rights and feminist movements is to perceive a genie that isn't there. Law of unintended consequences.
I don't have a "partisan bias in favor of progressive movements, no matter how extreme." I'm not sure where that's coming from; it's possible you're being slightly over defensive.
I would suggest it's not wildly irrational to sympathize with the ostensible and stated desires of MLK's version of the civil rights movement (which may seem like fluff to the cynical, but MLK was a preacher) while simultaneously acknowledging the considerable shortcomings of, say, BLM. The same with 1st wave feminism and its descendant distortions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I disagree with your definition of "woke". It might have been telephoned to that degree, but I operate from a much different vantage. In short, I see woke as "Systems of power have been designed, and they weren't made with your prosperity in mind. Don't fall in the cracks that their laws and loans and research has made. Don't be a victim of The System: stay woke."
A medical example: sodium is painted out to be a much bigger factor than it is in blood pressure studies. But the government & processed food industries stand to make money off of advertising and low-rigor studies, so re-education is low on the priority list. Staying woke means cooking from scratch and adding salt to taste.
Now if you're going to look for grift, you'll find it. There is more bullshit being written every day than you can read. If you want to find something to fight, you're going to. But why would that be good for you?
If you are acting as if woke ideology doesn't exist and what only exists is opposing victimization of the system, then you are promoting something that is completely false and utterly distorts reality in the most extreme degree. Such things are dangerous, more so for humanity as a whole for big things than if you are in a sinking ship with a massive hole in it and we have people acting as if the hole only exists in your head.
The reality is that far left hateful extremists have captured private institutions and goverments and been implementing both hateful propaganda, and discrimination and even authoritarianism enforcing the agenda to destroy and defame the right wing outgroups while making the left wing ingroups sacrosanct of criticism. Distorting things is bad while noting the ugly reality and opposing bad things is obviously good.
This propaganda, discrimination, and agenda has been so pervasive, and so often talked about even in motte, that I can not take your framing as being an honest but as purposefully deceitful.
The likelihood that someone in good faith claiming that this is about sodium in blood studies is rather small. But it that eventually that I don't actually entertain as a real one, your judgement would be bad and you would be wildly misinformed. And since the correct goal should be to stop this movement and promote justice, and secondarily is part of the purpose of institutions to be run by reasonable people, then your mentality that greatly distorts reality in praise of wokeness and is pro woke, should be seen as part of the problem of wokenes, that is so damaging to civilization. What we need is reasonable people to be those in our discourse, not deliberate distortions or even at best discussions about how many angels can dance in the head of the pin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry, I’ll admit I only skimmed through the text as it’s very long.
Let’s say I agree with everything you just said. How would you propose actually doing this? It’s not like anyone in control of any institutions are going to willingly give up their power.
That isn't the main issue and it is something to be examined in detail in another day. The idea was mainly to examine the concern trolling and what should be done about it as a small aside but not to come with an exact strategy in an already long post and no reason to post any exact gameplan.
Under this logic how can anything ever change? All things must change, and just like the communists lost, so will the woke. Part of the way to oppose things is to undermine the moral legitimacy of an immoral system, which actually matters. We do see a rise of wiser opposition that is less fooled by the pretenses as it used to be. Precisely because liberals in the past that were woke like were less extreme and their agenda was less pervasive. The same overused dirty tactics have become predictable and the scam has been realized.
So I make my own small contribution as a cog in the machine of opposing something that deserves opposing and in doing so contributing productively in discourse by bringing truth and clarity on an issue by uncovering how it has been framed in a manner that is deceitful and unjust.
It is not as if previous orders were led by people who never had their own will to hold to power. All empires fall and such will be the fate for the progressive woke one. Others before you expressed that same certainty for the permanency of their revolution and found themselves wrong. The woke which is a short hand for leftist/liberal progressive stack supporters are not the first group who thought they would manage to put their boot permanently on others neck. So I wouldn't be so sure about it in your place.
Ah ok, I misunderstood what you were going for. Thanks for explaining.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of these "NG"O's depend on government funding, I suppose you could pull off some DeSantisesque "no funding for Critical Theorists" bill.
Create an equal funding law, every dollar sent to a DEI group has to have one sent to a heteronormative, white identitarian, or men’s rights group.
Or radical idea just cut funding to NGOs. Why am I taxed to fund shitty NGOs I hate?
I kinda think my idea would be more effective at actually cutting funding to NGOs...
More options
Context Copy link
It's curious how non-governmental organizations seem to be so often funded by governments and directly involved in important questions of governance. Was it always this way? It increasingly feels like we're being governed by non-governmental organizations.
Rather, the government and the NGOs are both tentacles of the same entity.
More options
Context Copy link
We aren’t. Which ones do you have in mind?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link