People dislike their political opponents for views that most don't actually hold.There's nothing like making up the arguments of both sides of a debate for guaranteeing a rhetorical win for whichever side you favor.My take on political correctness differs somewhat from yours
It’s more of an observation than an argument.
So did everybody (in battleground states at least) who voted for Jill Stein or stayed home because they thought Hillary was a warmonger, not left enough and that if they can't have Bernie, they will take their ball and go home.
The whataboutism is getting very thin, here. "Sure, I voluntarily voted for a would-be dictator we first met on reality TV, along with half the country. We knew what he was, and invited him in on purpose. But a small curtain of independents failed to vote his largest opponent for various principled reasons. Aren't they the real threat?"
Yeah, those people did help Trump get elected at the margins. The Republicans, however, were the vast majority of support for Trump.
Very likely accurate. It explains why Trump voting conservatives hate social spending programs, but demand support for Medicare and Social Security.People dislike their political opponents for views that most don't actually hold.
Eh. Both Medicare and Social Security require you to pay into the program before you get benefits. Just FYI.Very likely accurate. It explains why Trump voting conservatives hate social spending programs, but demand support for Medicare and Social Security.People dislike their political opponents for views that most don't actually hold.
People who purposefully take another person's complaints or observations out of context in order to make them appear stupid or foolish for political or partisan gain.
Ummm, no. That'd be perfectly in context with what Derec said.
That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:No, I wasn't doing either of those things
Do you mean me?
It's a simple yes or no question.
Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me. Therefore you have some additional criterion for being "anti-woke" in addition to being against woke. That's a classic no-true-Scotsman fallacy.No.That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:No, I wasn't doing either of those things
Do you mean me?
It's a simple yes or no question.
Now will you stop beating your wife?
I'll point out that I would say people who describe themselves as anti-woke describe themselves, however much they try to say "this but not that" when "this" is a member of "that", as anti-intellectual.Thank you for the clarification. Therefore when you made your claim about the "anti-woke", you meant to restrict that to a set of people that doesn't include me. Therefore you have some additional criterion for being "anti-woke" in addition to being against woke. That's a classic no-true-Scotsman fallacy.No.That's absurd. Of course you were doing one or the other. You wrote "I did not suggest that the woke are intellectuals. Merely that the anti-woke are anti-intellectual." So I'll ask you again:No, I wasn't doing either of those things
Do you mean me?
It's a simple yes or no question.
Now will you stop beating your wife?
Funny sort of observation -- neither you nor Hermit ever actually observed a person say what the cartoonist made his caricature of a political opponent say. What we've all observed over and over is ideologues preaching to their choirs by putting words in the opposition's mouth.There's nothing like making up the arguments of both sides of a debate for guaranteeing a rhetorical win for whichever side you favor.My take on political correctness differs somewhat from yours
It’s more of an observation than an argument.
It’s more of an observation than a persecution complex -- most defenders of wokeism are observed to behave very tribally.
Can you tell us how many additional California votes Clinton needed in 2016 in order to have won the presidency?
So, in other words, you were wrong.
No, I didn't consider you in any way for even an instant. I had no intentions regarding including or excluding you from anything I said. You formed no part of any decision making process on my part.
1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:
So the answer is both:1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:
a) a public speaking club that meets in a church, although the people that go there are diverse,b) several incredibly geeky book clubs, mostly sci-fi, which is an incredibly libertarian subculture,c) one small farmers and crafters market, and most indie farmers are either conservative or libertarian,d) a few small zoosexual groups, which range from liberal socialists to libertarians to right-wing conspiracy nuts,and e) a local jogging group led by a local businessman that is also a libertarian.I am NOT part of some "woke movement." I keep diverse company, mostly people that are quite amazingly libertarian. I self-identify as a "moderate anarchist" half-joking but also half-seriously, and while there are some things that I would like to change about people's behavior toward me, I tend to think that I am more likely to achieve that change by making friends and being nice to people than by imposing my will upon them. I believe that vulnerability is powerful. It's been working, too.
While I aspire to some of the same goals as the woke movement, I have also taken a unique approach that I think is more effective. That approach is directly inspired by the kinds of people that I spend most of my time around. My friends are people that would do just about anything for you just because it was important to you, but if you think you are going to pressure them into doing something against their will, then you are making a serious mistake.
Therefore, I resent being called "woke." My goals might be the same, but how I actually behave is very different.
2) People that have appropriated the one thing about the woke movement that I believe is wrong, which is the hysterical and angry tone, while being against the things about the woke movement that I actually agree with.
Sometimes, members of the woke movement accuse you of holding beliefs that you really don't just because you have an individualistic and nuanced view. For example, some members of the woke movement were saying falsely that the Confederate monuments were all mass-produced in one year as a reaction to the American Civil Rights movement, and I pointed out that the real history is really more complex and confusing. Well, as far as those people were concerned, that meant that I was totally convinced that black people were inferior and that I was totally on-board with the alt-right racist agenda. When I protested, "Uh, no, I am not," I got called a troll for supposedly saying things just to get reactions out of people. The fact that I really agreed with the important part of their views and that I just happened to know a few petty historical details that they didn't know never even registered on their radar.
However, there are plenty of "anti-woke" cretins that are doing the same exact shit. If you are not a member of their particular tribe, then they brand you as a "wokester" or whatever stupid term they have been using, lately. They don't want to hear a nuanced view. They want you to give lip-service to their own counter-ideology. They have adopted everything that was problematic about the "woke movement" while not even having the same noble goals as the "woke movement." They are not just "bad means," but they are also "bad ends."
On one side are the Bolsheviks, but while I agree that there is a need to do something to improve the situation of the industrial workers and the peasants, I disagree with the idea that the right way to do it is to live under the jack boot of an authoritarian communist regime. On the other side of me is Nazi Germany, though, and they really make no pretense of benevolent motives.
I am Nestor Makhno. When both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis asked him and his nation to truckle, his response was to invent this thing:
That has "no, thank you" written all over it.
To all authoritarian pieces of crap of every possible stripe, take your jack boot, and shove it up your ass.
Yes, but no...
*puffs a small smoke-ring*
So the answer is both:1) People that call me "woke" when I am really not. I do not even own a Twitter account. My social interaction outside of work is exactly this:
a) a public speaking club that meets in a church, although the people that go there are diverse,b) several incredibly geeky book clubs, mostly sci-fi, which is an incredibly libertarian subculture,c) one small farmers and crafters market, and most indie farmers are either conservative or libertarian,d) a few small zoosexual groups, which range from liberal socialists to libertarians to right-wing conspiracy nuts,and e) a local jogging group led by a local businessman that is also a libertarian.I am NOT part of some "woke movement." I keep diverse company, mostly people that are quite amazingly libertarian. I self-identify as a "moderate anarchist" half-joking but also half-seriously, and while there are some things that I would like to change about people's behavior toward me, I tend to think that I am more likely to achieve that change by making friends and being nice to people than by imposing my will upon them. I believe that vulnerability is powerful. It's been working, too.
While I aspire to some of the same goals as the woke movement, I have also taken a unique approach that I think is more effective. That approach is directly inspired by the kinds of people that I spend most of my time around. My friends are people that would do just about anything for you just because it was important to you, but if you think you are going to pressure them into doing something against their will, then you are making a serious mistake.
Therefore, I resent being called "woke." My goals might be the same, but how I actually behave is very different.
2) People that have appropriated the one thing about the woke movement that I believe is wrong, which is the hysterical and angry tone, while being against the things about the woke movement that I actually agree with.
Sometimes, members of the woke movement accuse you of holding beliefs that you really don't just because you have an individualistic and nuanced view. For example, some members of the woke movement were saying falsely that the Confederate monuments were all mass-produced in one year as a reaction to the American Civil Rights movement, and I pointed out that the real history is really more complex and confusing. Well, as far as those people were concerned, that meant that I was totally convinced that black people were inferior and that I was totally on-board with the alt-right racist agenda. When I protested, "Uh, no, I am not," I got called a troll for supposedly saying things just to get reactions out of people. The fact that I really agreed with the important part of their views and that I just happened to know a few petty historical details that they didn't know never even registered on their radar.
However, there are plenty of "anti-woke" cretins that are doing the same exact shit. If you are not a member of their particular tribe, then they brand you as a "wokester" or whatever stupid term they have been using, lately. They don't want to hear a nuanced view. They want you to give lip-service to their own counter-ideology. They have adopted everything that was problematic about the "woke movement" while not even having the same noble goals as the "woke movement." They are not just "bad means," but they are also "bad ends."
On one side are the Bolsheviks, but while I agree that there is a need to do something to improve the situation of the industrial workers and the peasants, I disagree with the idea that the right way to do it is to live under the jack boot of an authoritarian communist regime. On the other side of me is Nazi Germany, though, and they really make no pretense of benevolent motives.
I am Nestor Makhno. When both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis asked him and his nation to truckle, his response was to invent this thing:
That has "no, thank you" written all over it.
To all authoritarian pieces of crap of every possible stripe, take your jack boot, and shove it up your ass.
Yes, but no...
I can't say I'm surprised.
You can't explain why you genuinely hate these people, or why, without paragraphs and paragraphs about what is really important.
You.
Tom
That's nice; but "Do you mean me?" is not the same question as "Were you considering me in any way even for an instant when you said what you said?". Since you read the former question as if it were the latter question, you really haven't answered the former.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
This is not an analogically applicable scenario in the least.
If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
A wise man once said, "you should never attribute to stupidity that which is better explained by a short-sighted lack of principles."If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
You asked a hypothetical question based on the faulty supposition that another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2020 outcome, and I answered it in kind.
FWIW I wouldn’t blame any of the Dem voters for lack of success getting Uncle Duck Dynasty to turn away from Cheato, but for lack of effort? Yes, some of them. They should have known like tens of millions of Americans did, that the Rethuglicans had nominated a dangerous incompetent buffoon, put aside the acrimony toward Hillary borne of RW propaganda and responded to the immediate urgency of the situation. Now democracy hangs in the balance.
Thank the nonexistent gods that RW extremists are so stupid that they just pissed off about 70% of the electorate, giving Dems a breath of hope for November despite all the GQP cheating.
Step 1:
Not a faulty supposition. (Except for the 2020 bit, which wasn't my supposition.) Another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2016 outcome. You're talking about people influencing their friends and relatives, which you argue correlates with who they vote for. It might at that, but correlation does not equal causation. Their votes would have had no effect.If we buy that reasoning, it would seem to also imply that every Clinton voter in California who failed to harangue his swing-state relatives and friends until they agreed to vote for Clinton helped Trump get elected.
Can’t give you an exact number. But enough to have persuaded sufficient numbers of their swing State resident relatives and friends to have given Hillary the electoral college.
You asked a hypothetical question based on the faulty supposition that another 10 million CA votes for Hillary would have had no effect on the 2020 outcome, and I answered it in kind.
That is a barrier, yes. I have nevertheless been able to overcome it by more carefully curating my acquaintance and holding onto good people when I do find them.
You may have overcome what the problem represents to you personally, but the system that is based on anger and outrage still predominates.
In social contexts that are low-investment, this will remain the case.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment.
Honestly, this is why I exited Twitter too.While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment.
I have never been on there, thankfully. I already have a mercurial temperament, and I am already hotheaded enough as it is. I do not need a computer program that is deliberately designed to turn people into lunatic extremists.Honestly, this is why I exited Twitter too.While I agree with you wholeheartedly, it's not lost on me that my one sentence response to your three sentence post is a hugely ironic way to express this sentiment.
I can't imagine how hard it was for Sigma on there... There's a HUGE call-out/block/dox culture on Twitter and they target those whose sexualities are, while ethical, immediately border a vast grey/black area, and sometimes evil manages to sneak in through those nearby cracks and hides among their community, compounding the issue.
I know this because I'm also a member of such a sexual minority, though I manage mine with adult humans and safewords and roleplay.
Sometimes we act like dogs.
Sometimes we act like rapists and rape victims.
Sometimes we act like children.
But Oh. My. God.
No matter what kind of relationship or consent exists in your life, there are folks who will use it's strangeness and cultural ignorance to kinkshame on Twitter.
That is why I keep talking about the difference between barbarism and anarchy. Some people think that barbarism is just another word for anarchy, but according to Immanuel Kant, they are wrong.
Bald faced, unsupported assertion noted.
Moreover, all votes even n Caifornia, that did not express repudiation then added to the damage that was done because they felt the adoration of milions more. A more lopsided vote would have changed the tenor, and that owuld have been valuable. So, IMHO, their (California Trump voters) votes WOULD have had a mitigating effect on the disaster that was his presidency if those votes had not been given to Trump.
You cutting out a paragraph of argument, quoting only its concluding sentence as though the conclusion had been posted without the argument, and inventing out of whole cloth an accusation that the conclusion had been a bald faced unsupported assertion, noted. Don't act like a jackass.
I pretend nothing of the sort; I merely point out that such a conversation can have an effect on the election but this in no way implies that a vote does. Which part of "correlation does not equal causation" did you not understand when you were snipping it out?
I didn't claim such pleading wouldn't have helped. You're the one making the positive claim -- your argument amounts to claiming that voting for Trump stopped them from pleading with their swing state relatives on Clinton's behalf. That's of dubious plausibility. What most likely stopped them from pleading with their swing state relatives on Clinton's behalf was that they didn't like Clinton.
www.listennotes.com
What's your point? "Some liberals (stupidly) voted their conscience" seems a peculiar comeback, albeit true, for the true claim that "Every Trump voter is a criminal, bigot and/or moron."
Like that, yes. You define that woke as anything that is indefensible, then when you call something woke, by default, it must be an indefensible position.
People historically don't like being called vapid or hypocrites, especially when they are. This isn't new. But it is convenient to just call people woke so you don't actually have to address them.
Interesting. One sentence for a claim, then several sentences elaborating on an analogy, instead of the claim.
America's democracy was almost stole by people that whine on about woke. Just saying.
Well, I had what would now be called "woke" views before the word "woke" was being used, but I have my own reasons why. I grew up in a state where gay sex was a felony, and defense attorneys were still trying to use the "gay panic defense" in court, which is literally the defense, "My client was just so disgusted by the thought of such UNNATURAL sex acts that he was rendered temporarily insane. He really couldn't help himself." This was still going on in the 1990's. That is not something that I know because of an ideology. That is something I know because it was my life.
Indeed, anti-wokeism feels like it is as guilty of anything it accuses woke of being. Granted, that is an alt-right attribute for just about most things in life.
I'm not certain where we have already been, but it feels like A Time to Kill, and the Klan is coming back out... but in this case, a lot more klan out there than we thought.
