• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Anti-wokeists are annoying

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
You cannot understand the patchwork nightmare of the United States without actually living here. Unfortunately, it is only going to get more complicated over here for a while.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
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.

I am not sure that I like being called "woke" because it implies the assumption that I have only had the feelings that I have since the start of the woke movement. This would be a false characterization. I did not need to be "awoken" because I was never given a chance to fall asleep. I would be glad if I ever did have a real opportunity to rest, but that is not nigh.

I also used to have woke values. I've had woke values my entire life up until a couple of years ago. I grew in a city where gay bashing was a popular past time. At some point in the 90'ies it swung over to the other side, and people who had a problem with homosexuality were socially excluded. Bullied.

I don't see this as a problem. I see this as the perfect example of Hegelian dialectics. In the olden days (1980'ies) the social pressure was to hate gays. In the 1990'ies it became increasingly apparent that this was a dumb value. It was a value borne out of world with high mortality and keeping farm land within the family was important. In a world where this was a non-factor it felt like increasingly like an antiquated and dysfunctional value. We slid over to a world where the social pressure was to accept gays.

Thesis, anti-thesis and the next step synthesis. A marriage of these two positions. Ie we stop bullying people into any position on the gay question. And our societies find a new problem we can fight for or against, to create a dichotomy about. Perhaps global warming and energy efficiency? Or how to handle Russia?

Woke had a function when gays were being murdered in the streets. Woke solves no problems today. Instead it needs to continually invent bullshit problems. You know... like fascists have to continually find someone to blame their failures on the wokes need to continually expand the reach of the patriarchy. Occupy Wall Street was utter bollocks. What exactly has BLM achieved?

In Hegelian terms, woke is the anti-thesis to the previous intolerant conservative norms. And when any paradigm achieves total dominance it becomes destructive and suffocating. That's what woke has become today. I'm not against woke because I hate gays (or blacks). I'm against woke because I think it's role has been played out. We don't need it anymore. We will never achieve total equality in society. It's a dumb goal.

It's always going to suck more to be gay/queer than straight. Because the world will always be designed for whatever is the most common way to be (who therefore have most of the power). That's not a sign of an evil uncaring world. That's just the result of being mindful about not wasting resources. People are lazy. Not evil. It's got to be ok to be lazy.

In Sweden today healthcare professionals aren't allowed to use gendered language about patients. That's just bizarre. It's stupid that the vast majority of a population has to be instructed, to make an effort, to use a language that only acts to confuse life and make all communication take a little bit longer. And trans people who have an issue with this... Let's just say... if they find this traumatic, then they have more serious problems than their gender.

Today it was announced that the Swedish symbol for a bike lane will be changed. Earlier the symbol was a male bicycle. Now a symbol for a female symbol will be used together with the female symbol. My opinion, anybody who has strong opinions on this is an idiot. It's a dumb pseudo issue of zero consequence. I like the new symbol. It looks more like a bicycle and is easier to identify further away. So I'd prefer it if they scrapped the old symbol and went only with lady bicycles. But that's not because I'm woke. It's just a better symbol, based only on traffic safety and not confusing people. I'd also be fine with keeping the old symbol. It was fine.

New Symbol

Old symbol


I just want woke to die now
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
In America, 'woke' is among the most insignificant of problems. It is like CRT. To see people so riled up over it really demonstrates how some have managed to successfully transform molehills into mountains, and how manipulatable people can be.
Today it was announced that the Swedish symbol for a bike lane will be changed. Earlier the symbol was a male bicycle. Now a symbol for a female symbol will be used together with the female symbol. My opinion, anybody who has strong opinions on this is an idiot. It's a dumb pseudo issue of zero consequence. I like the new symbol. It looks more like a bicycle and is easier to identify further away. So I'd prefer it if they scrapped the old symbol and went only with lady bicycles. But that's not because I'm woke. It's just a better symbol, based only on traffic safety and not confusing people. I'd also be fine with keeping the old symbol. It was fine.
Or maybe female cyclists take notice about how patriarchal things are. Kind of like how females take notice that video game characters are rarely female. Being a white male, these things are familiar, so one doesn't even take notice. However, one doesn't have to have a "strong opinion" or "woke" to notice patterns.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
In Hegelian terms, woke is the anti-thesis to the previous intolerant conservative norms. And when any paradigm achieves total dominance it becomes destructive and suffocating. That's what woke has become today. I'm not against woke because I hate gays (or blacks). I'm against woke because I think it's role has been played out. We don't need it anymore. We will never achieve total equality in society. It's a dumb goal.

Then I'm glad you're not here. We do value freedom and equality here in the United States, and will happily fight and die for those values.

Also we have a better grasp on Hegel, apparently.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
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.

I am not sure that I like being called "woke" because it implies the assumption that I have only had the feelings that I have since the start of the woke movement. This would be a false characterization. I did not need to be "awoken" because I was never given a chance to fall asleep. I would be glad if I ever did have a real opportunity to rest, but that is not nigh.

I also used to have woke values. I've had woke values my entire life up until a couple of years ago. I grew in a city where gay bashing was a popular past time. At some point in the 90'ies it swung over to the other side, and people who had a problem with homosexuality were socially excluded. Bullied.

I still have to live with being transgender, and I actually am justified in doing whatever I have to do in order to make sure that I am safe in my day-to-day life. Literally everything else will always come second, and it should.

I don't see this as a problem. I see this as the perfect example of Hegelian dialectics. In the olden days (1980'ies) the social pressure was to hate gays. In the 1990'ies it became increasingly apparent that this was a dumb value. It was a value borne out of world with high mortality and keeping farm land within the family was important. In a world where this was a non-factor it felt like increasingly like an antiquated and dysfunctional value. We slid over to a world where the social pressure was to accept gays.

Thesis, anti-thesis and the next step synthesis. A marriage of these two positions. Ie we stop bullying people into any position on the gay question. And our societies find a new problem we can fight for or against, to create a dichotomy about. Perhaps global warming and energy efficiency? Or how to handle Russia?

Hegelianism is cancer. I am not under any obligation to compromise in regard to my own safety or the security of my livelihood under any conditions whatsoever.

Woke had a function when gays were being murdered in the streets. Woke solves no problems today. Instead it needs to continually invent bullshit problems. You know... like fascists have to continually find someone to blame their failures on the wokes need to continually expand the reach of the patriarchy. Occupy Wall Street was utter bollocks. What exactly has BLM achieved?

Gay people and transgender people are still harassed and beleaguered in many parts of my country. We currently have a US state where the families of transgender kids are literally being persecuted by the government, and we have another attempting to slap their doctors with decades long prison sentences. Anti-LGBTQ violence is becoming a problem again in many districts. We may always need to work to keep these problems under control. What we have learned, over the past couple of decades, is that the pursuit of LGBTQ rigthts is not a "once and done" kind of deal, but it is something we have to maintain for generation after generation.

In Hegelian terms, woke is the anti-thesis to the previous intolerant conservative norms. And when any paradigm achieves total dominance it becomes destructive and suffocating. That's what woke has become today. I'm not against woke because I hate gays (or blacks). I'm against woke because I think it's role has been played out. We don't need it anymore. We will never achieve total equality in society. It's a dumb goal.

There is no universe where I am obligated to tolerate SOME amount of endangerment of my life, SOME amount of cruel discrimination in my everyday life, or SOME amount of indignity in my existence. There will be no compromise under any conditions whatsoever. The exact amount of cruelty I am ever obligated to tolerate is precisely bupkis.

The primary fault that I can find with the LGBTQ community, over the past decade, is that the community had become complacent. The past year's political abuses, by the GOP, are hopefully going to be enough to jolt them awake while they are still able to organize openly.

I also happen to be a member of the zooey community, and we are in a much more difficult position. By comparison, it is very hard for us to organize openly, and as a consequence, the growth of our organizations and of our community has been painfully slow, although a few brave individuals have succeeded at establishing underground communities. It is feasible but difficult to organize under such circumstances. What happened to the zooey community was that, back in 1991, the leadership of our online community took an officially conservative and reclusive stance insofar as their relationship with society, and we have documented evidence of this. It is going to take us generations to undo the damage that was caused by this policy. I can tell you first hand that the conditions that this created for us have made it very difficult for us to get anything done whatsoever.

The LGBTQ community had similar problems when the sodomy laws, in the United States, were more widespread and were being more widely enforced. Largely, we had to organize in secret. The majority of our organizations were clandestine, underground organizations. When LGBTQ were at serious risk of damage to their reputations, their livelihoods, or their safety as a consequence of the sodomy laws, getting anything done in the community at all was a mission. We had to be careful of what we said about anybody in our community because, for some of us, getting outed could have catastrophic consequences. It therefore took an absolutely insane amount of trouble just to get the simplest things done.

The GOP has every intention of attacking Lawrence v. Texas. They have made it clear that they do not hold any of the progressive advances, in their rulings, to be permanent, They have no intention whatsoever of leaving the Lawrence v. Texas ruling intact or unaltered, and they have no intention of leaving Obergefell v. Hodges intact or unaltered. They have every intention of attacking those rulings the first chance they get.

The Texas GOP's current platform is particularly dangerous:


The LGBTQ community needs to respond aggressively to a party that has this kind of platform.

It's always going to suck more to be gay/queer than straight.

This is actually false. In the most educated areas in the country, LGBTQ tend to actually have a very good quality of life, and in some parts of the country, gay men and lesbians actually have an even higher life-expectancy than straight people just because, culturally, they make a higher investment in their health in those parts of the country. Stepping it out to make an effort to live well is worth doing. This is a natural way for them to behave: they have worked very hard to have the same opportunities as others, so it is natural for them to work just as hard to take advantage of those opportunities. However, this shows that it is worthwhile to try.

Because the world will always be designed for whatever is the most common way to be (who therefore have most of the power).

You are making an is-ought error, here. You are assuming falsely that, just because it is hard to avoid minority groups getting disregarded by society, then a society where minority groups are disregarded must be the most ideal possible society. You are committing what Hume would have called the "naturalistic fallacy."

That's not a sign of an evil uncaring world.

Actually, it is. I actually do judge our society for the mistreatment of its minority groups. The way that our society has historically behaved toward LGBTQ has been barbaric and unpardonable.

You might as well say that slavery was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 19th Century. The rage of the abolitionists was well-justified, and people in the American south that defended slavery really were people that deserved to die: they gave up their right to life in the moment they said that it was okay to keep a human being as property, and they do not really deserve to be mourned or to have monuments to honor them. The times do not excuse them. They were filth.

You might as well say that leaving the poor to starve to death without doing anything at all to improve their situation was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 18th Century. You would be wrong. Jonathan Swift's harsh criticisms of his society's treatment of the poor, during that time-period, were well-justified. His extreme misanthropy was well-justified. He had a negative opinion toward his society because his society was a cesspool.

The injustices of society always deserve the most harsh censure, and those that are brave enough to speak out against injustice when speaking out is unpopular should be remembered as heroes.

That's just the result of being mindful about not wasting resources. People are lazy. Not evil. It's got to be ok to be lazy.

If it is not worth your while to treat a human being with the dignity that is due to a human being, then your own life is worth nothing, and there is no reason whatsoever why I should care if you live or die. You always have time for treating your fellow human beings with dignity, or your time is not worth anything at all.

There was a time when it might have been expedient for you to tolerate slavery. There was a time when it would have been expedient for you to have turned a blind eye to the economist Knut Wicksell getting treated as a criminal for his beliefs. Yes, it is always more expedient for you to ignore injustice, and it is always shameful for you to ignore injustice.

If you would put expediency first and justice last, then you have lived for nothing.

In Sweden today healthcare professionals aren't allowed to use gendered language about patients. That's just bizarre. It's stupid that the vast majority of a population has to be instructed, to make an effort, to use a language that only acts to confuse life and make all communication take a little bit longer. And trans people who have an issue with this... Let's just say... if they find this traumatic, then they have more serious problems than their gender.

It would be much easier if your country were to start transitioning young people in their early teens, so they would actually appear and sound to be the gender that they identify with, but your country's medical authorities are currently living in the 19th Century, where the rights of transgender kids are concerned. Do not hold up your own country as an ideal. They have fallen far behind in regard to transgender rights, and transgender people are treated extremely badly in your country's media. Your country has fallen from grace.

Today it was announced that the Swedish symbol for a bike lane will be changed. Earlier the symbol was a male bicycle. Now a symbol for a female symbol will be used together with the female symbol. My opinion, anybody who has strong opinions on this is an idiot. It's a dumb pseudo issue of zero consequence. I like the new symbol. It looks more like a bicycle and is easier to identify further away. So I'd prefer it if they scrapped the old symbol and went only with lady bicycles. But that's not because I'm woke. It's just a better symbol, based only on traffic safety and not confusing people. I'd also be fine with keeping the old symbol. It was fine.

New Symbol

Old symbol

Yes, the price of tea in China is higher than it used to be. Blame the droughts in Yunnan.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
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.

I am not sure that I like being called "woke" because it implies the assumption that I have only had the feelings that I have since the start of the woke movement. This would be a false characterization. I did not need to be "awoken" because I was never given a chance to fall asleep. I would be glad if I ever did have a real opportunity to rest, but that is not nigh.

I also used to have woke values. I've had woke values my entire life up until a couple of years ago. I grew in a city where gay bashing was a popular past time. At some point in the 90'ies it swung over to the other side, and people who had a problem with homosexuality were socially excluded. Bullied.

I still have to live with being transgender, and I actually am justified in doing whatever I have to do in order to make sure that I am safe in my day-to-day life. Literally everything else will always come second, and it should.

That's completely reasonable. And should be how everybody lives their lives. But there are limits to how much we're all willing to sacrifice for other people's safety. And that's where the wokes run into conflict with society. And the idiotic demand that everybody needs to understand every difficulty every other group is going through is bizarre. It's reasonable that experts in the field have that degree of understanding is reasonable. But for the population at large? No.

I don't see this as a problem. I see this as the perfect example of Hegelian dialectics. In the olden days (1980'ies) the social pressure was to hate gays. In the 1990'ies it became increasingly apparent that this was a dumb value. It was a value borne out of world with high mortality and keeping farm land within the family was important. In a world where this was a non-factor it felt like increasingly like an antiquated and dysfunctional value. We slid over to a world where the social pressure was to accept gays.

Thesis, anti-thesis and the next step synthesis. A marriage of these two positions. Ie we stop bullying people into any position on the gay question. And our societies find a new problem we can fight for or against, to create a dichotomy about. Perhaps global warming and energy efficiency? Or how to handle Russia?

Hegelianism is cancer. I am not under any obligation to compromise in regard to my own safety or the security of my livelihood under any conditions whatsoever.

Hegel (together with Smith) is the foundation for Marx, who in turn is the foundational ideology of the left. If you reject Hegel, what are you basing your narrative of history on? What's your theory on how cultures change? If Hegelian dialecticism isn't true then how do you explain shifts in values over time? Are you using the Great Man theory of historical change? That wouldn't be very woke of you.


Woke had a function when gays were being murdered in the streets. Woke solves no problems today. Instead it needs to continually invent bullshit problems. You know... like fascists have to continually find someone to blame their failures on the wokes need to continually expand the reach of the patriarchy. Occupy Wall Street was utter bollocks. What exactly has BLM achieved?

Gay people and transgender people are still harassed and beleaguered in many parts of my country. We currently have a US state where the families of transgender kids are literally being persecuted by the government, and we have another attempting to slap their doctors with decades long prison sentences. Anti-LGBTQ violence is becoming a problem again in many districts. We may always need to work to keep these problems under control. What we have learned, over the past couple of decades, is that the pursuit of LGBTQ rigthts is not a "once and done" kind of deal, but it is something we have to maintain for generation after generation.

I think the fight for LGBTQ acceptance and equal rights is something that will never end. Because people who don't share your experience or problem will never get it. That's just part of the human experience. Reading books from a different historical period can teach you that. They have problems we will never be able to related to, or even understand why it's a problem. I will never know how it is to be transgendered. I will never know how experiences differ between transsexuals and transvestites. And that's ok. It sucks to be weird (not the norm). That's just how it's going to be. Forever.

Accepting that is not the same thing as condoning violence against queers.


In Hegelian terms, woke is the anti-thesis to the previous intolerant conservative norms. And when any paradigm achieves total dominance it becomes destructive and suffocating. That's what woke has become today. I'm not against woke because I hate gays (or blacks). I'm against woke because I think it's role has been played out. We don't need it anymore. We will never achieve total equality in society. It's a dumb goal.

There is no universe where I am obligated to tolerate SOME amount of endangerment of my life, SOME amount of cruel discrimination in my everyday life, or SOME amount of indignity in my existence. There will be no compromise under any conditions whatsoever. The exact amount of cruelty I am ever obligated to tolerate is precisely bupkis.

You're not obligated to. But your choices aren't about making it stop or not. Your choices are about living your life in a state of victimhood or trying to find some beauty in a cruel world.

Everybody's life is endangered every day. Cruel discrimination is a part of everybody's life, consciously or not. Indignity is just a fact of life for everyone. You're not obligated to tolerate it. But your choice is to accept it or turn bitter. That was the insight of Buddha. He wasn't wrong.


The primary fault that I can find with the LGBTQ community, over the past decade, is that the community had become complacent. The past year's political abuses, by the GOP, are hopefully going to be enough to jolt them awake while they are still able to organize openly.

I also happen to be a member of the zooey community, and we are in a much more difficult position. By comparison, it is very hard for us to organize openly, and as a consequence, the growth of our organizations and of our community has been painfully slow, although a few brave individuals have succeeded at establishing underground communities. It is feasible but difficult to organize under such circumstances. What happened to the zooey community was that, back in 1991, the leadership of our online community took an officially conservative and reclusive stance insofar as their relationship with society, and we have documented evidence of this. It is going to take us generations to undo the damage that was caused by this policy. I can tell you first hand that the conditions that this created for us have made it very difficult for us to get anything done whatsoever.

The LGBTQ community had similar problems when the sodomy laws, in the United States, were more widespread and were being more widely enforced. Largely, we had to organize in secret. The majority of our organizations were clandestine, underground organizations. When LGBTQ were at serious risk of damage to their reputations, their livelihoods, or their safety as a consequence of the sodomy laws, getting anything done in the community at all was a mission. We had to be careful of what we said about anybody in our community because, for some of us, getting outed could have catastrophic consequences. It therefore took an absolutely insane amount of trouble just to get the simplest things done.

The GOP has every intention of attacking Lawrence v. Texas. They have made it clear that they do not hold any of the progressive advances, in their rulings, to be permanent, They have no intention whatsoever of leaving the Lawrence v. Texas ruling intact or unaltered, and they have no intention of leaving Obergefell v. Hodges intact or unaltered. They have every intention of attacking those rulings the first chance they get.

The Texas GOP's current platform is particularly dangerous:


The LGBTQ community needs to respond aggressively to a party that has this kind of platform.



It's always going to suck more to be gay/queer than straight.

This is actually false. In the most educated areas in the country, LGBTQ tend to actually have a very good quality of life, and in some parts of the country, gay men and lesbians actually have an even higher life-expectancy than straight people just because, culturally, they make a higher investment in their health in those parts of the country. Stepping it out to make an effort to live well is worth doing. This is a natural way for them to behave: they have worked very hard to have the same opportunities as others, so it is natural for them to work just as hard to take advantage of those opportunities. However, this shows that it is worthwhile to try.


The LGBTQ community became complacent because it won. That's what happens to any movement that managed to grab power. The core problem of any special interest group is that most people don't share that interest. Today the LGBTQ has disproportionate power and influence in relation to their numbers. That can only be a temporary situation. It's going to get worse for the LGBTQ community going forward.

Once straights realize that the pay-off for promoting gay rights is low, they're going to stop. Being openly a straight ally for gay rights is only fun if you get a pack on the back for doing it. The privileged are never actually willing to sacrifice privilege unless they are forced to... by an army.

Right now I get the impression that the gay rights movement are utterly delusional regarding how power dynamics work. Which is interesting considering how many of them have taken gender studies. That's all about studying how power dynamics work in practice.

Once the conservative backlash against LGBTQ movement has reached it's apex, it's going to be less fun to be queer. And we're heading for that at full speed. I want to emphasize that I am not for this. I'm a big friend of the gay/queer community. It's just that I want to be realistic about this. And this is how I see it.



Because the world will always be designed for whatever is the most common way to be (who therefore have most of the power).

You are making an is-ought error, here. You are assuming falsely that, just because it is hard to avoid minority groups getting disregarded by society, then a society where minority groups are disregarded must be the most ideal possible society. You are committing what Hume would have called the "naturalistic fallacy."

I don't think I am. It's not an ideal. It's just how (I think) things work. Everybody likes being a hero in their own story. EVERYBODY. If straights stop being treated like heroes for accepting gays, (because it's become normal) they're going to automatically stop accepting gays.

The fact that the American GOP and American Evangelicals are so fucking nuts, is a big reason liberals in USA are still so super duper gay friendly. If the GOP wouldn't be so nuts I doubt USA would be as gay friendly today. Human psychology works in dichotomies (also Hegel's insight).








That's not a sign of an evil uncaring world.

Actually, it is. I actually do judge our society for the mistreatment of its minority groups. The way that our society has historically behaved toward LGBTQ has been barbaric and unpardonable.

You might as well say that slavery was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 19th Century. The rage of the abolitionists was well-justified, and people in the American south that defended slavery really were people that deserved to die: they gave up their right to life in the moment they said that it was okay to keep a human being as property, and they do not really deserve to be mourned or to have monuments to honor them. The times do not excuse them. They were filth.

You might as well say that leaving the poor to starve to death without doing anything at all to improve their situation was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 18th Century. You would be wrong. Jonathan Swift's harsh criticisms of his society's treatment of the poor, during that time-period, were well-justified. His extreme misanthropy was well-justified. He had a negative opinion toward his society because his society was a cesspool.

The injustices of society always deserve the most harsh censure, and those that are brave enough to speak out against injustice when speaking out is unpopular should be remembered as heroes.

You can chose to have this attitude. But you're not doing yourself any favours. It'll make you bitter about the world. It'll also make you less able to change the world because nobody likes an asshole. If queers want straight allies they need to constantly be mindful of, what's in it for the straights. If not, they're not going to have those allies for long.

“Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”
/Ruth Bader Ginsburg


That's just the result of being mindful about not wasting resources. People are lazy. Not evil. It's got to be ok to be lazy.

If it is not worth your while to treat a human being with the dignity that is due to a human being, then your own life is worth nothing, and there is no reason whatsoever why I should care if you live or die. You always have time for treating your fellow human beings with dignity, or your time is not worth anything at all.

There was a time when it might have been expedient for you to tolerate slavery. There was a time when it would have been expedient for you to have turned a blind eye to the economist Knut Wicksell getting treated as a criminal for his beliefs. Yes, it is always more expedient for you to ignore injustice, and it is always shameful for you to ignore injustice.

If you would put expediency first and justice last, then you have lived for nothing.

Says the person who earlier had a problem with the naturalistic fallacy.

Slavery is still a problem in the world. A big problem. It's not something we (as a species) ever stopped doing. We stopped doing it in certain places. But it's still going strong. Denying it is being delusional. Most people today tolerate slavery. Because in the big bag of problems in the west, slavery in foreign lands, is low on the list of priorities.

Western gays do the same thing Western straights do. They care about problems important to them. That's fine. But if you think that the mainstream culture will keep putting queer special interests on a pedestal, you're in for a rude awaking when the next popular trend of issues hits us.

I remember reading an article about feminism in India and how the Indian delegates to Western feminist conferences didn't understand how Western feminists could get so worked up about, what they saw as, complete bullshit issues. The Indian delegates had a laser focus on stopping Honour Killings and not getting murdered by their arranged marriage husbands. We all do this. We're all blind to problems we don't share. That's completely normal and has to be acceptable in society, or nothing will change.


In Sweden today healthcare professionals aren't allowed to use gendered language about patients. That's just bizarre. It's stupid that the vast majority of a population has to be instructed, to make an effort, to use a language that only acts to confuse life and make all communication take a little bit longer. And trans people who have an issue with this... Let's just say... if they find this traumatic, then they have more serious problems than their gender.

It would be much easier if your country were to start transitioning young people in their early teens, so they would actually appear and sound to be the gender that they identify with, but your country's medical authorities are currently living in the 19th Century, where the rights of transgender kids are concerned. Do not hold up your own country as an ideal. They have fallen far behind in regard to transgender rights, and transgender people are treated extremely badly in your country's media. Your country has fallen from grace.

This is hard to explain to an American, but Sweden is a collectivist culture. This means that the Swedish cultural values can switch on a dime. If our leaders change values they can count on the vast majority pf Swedish people getting onboard pretty fast. Unless you have lived in a collectivist culture, you're not going to get it. Our democracy, works differently than yours.

In the 90'ies Sweden switched from gay hating and gay bashing to gay loving in an extremely short period of time. Months. We also switched from racist in the 1950'ies to not racist in the 1960'ies equally fast. There's been a monumental shift in Swedish politics just these last five years. Swedish values have shifted. It's hard to say where it all will land, and it's not as simple as it going more to the right. But Sweden will be a lot more conservative, racist and sex negative going forward. While also more drug friendly. The change has been noticeable. The upcoming election is going to be interesting.

If you thought it's bad for queers now in Sweden, it's going to get worse. A lot worse, after the next election. Or better. It depends on your values. But Swedes in general are not happy about that it's so easy to transition in Sweden. It's not really. But the public perception is that it is.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The depressing thing this, Dr Zoidberg probably really does think he is a "big friend of the gay/queer community". Living in the SF Bay Area as I do, I meet plenty of people of this type in daily life, "card carrying liberals" who nevertheless think that workplace equality or wanting to shut down legal youth internment camps or getting medical care after a transition or the right to use the fucking bathroom are a bridge too far and if gays don't get back in the closet soon, it'll be our own fault if our heads get bashed in by bigots. Who think the minimal and incomplete gains we made during the eight short years of the Obama administration were "too much too fast" and we should wait a few decades before asking for anything else, or even daring to complain as the rights we did gain are slowly stripped away. Who think that they are morally superior to the playground bully because all they did was look the other way, they weren't doing the punching. And anyways, shouldn't we ask about the poor bullies' home life?

Dr Z, for the record, we are not and will never be friends. I am willing to have a polite exchange on the internet, with anyone, but I am not "friends" with people who fail to respect my full humanity. Any relationship which mimics amity but is not built on a foundation of mutual respect is abuse, not friendship, and it always ends the same way eventually.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The depressing thing this, Dr Zoidberg probably really does think he is a "big friend of the gay/queer community". Living in the SF Bay Area as I do, I meet plenty of people of this type in daily life, "card carrying liberals" who nevertheless think that workplace equality or wanting to shut down legal youth internment camps or getting medical care after a transition or the right to use the fucking bathroom are a bridge too far and if gays don't get back in the closet soon, it'll be our own fault if our heads get bashed in by bigots. Who think the minimal and incomplete gains we made during the eight short years of the Obama administration were "too much too fast" and we should wait a few decades before asking for anything else, or even daring to complain as the rights we did gain are slowly stripped away. Who think that they are morally superior to the playground bully because all they did was look the other way, they weren't doing the punching. And anyways, shouldn't we ask about the poor bullies' home life?

Dr Z, for the record, we are not and will never be friends. I am willing to have a polite exchange on the internet, with anyone, but I am not "friends" with people who fail to respect my full humanity. Any relationship which mimics amity but is not built on a foundation of mutual respect is abuse, not friendship, and it always ends the same way eventually.
I think this reply is just delusional. Your black and white view of the world is so crazy it will isolate you, not only from your opponents, but also allies. Since you won't be able to communicate in a way that is relatable, for anyone. I wonder if anything in your post displays any genuine emotion? To me it reads as a propaganda piece.

It's also interesting how my choice not to obsessively repeat the woke acceptabla phrases makes me an enemy. With thinking like yours It's not so strange the left is losing hearts and minds.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I don't think I am. It's not an ideal. It's just how (I think) things work. Everybody likes being a hero in their own story. EVERYBODY. If straights stop being treated like heroes for accepting gays, (because it's become normal) they're going to automatically stop accepting gays.

The fact that the American GOP and American Evangelicals are so fucking nuts, is a big reason liberals in USA are still so super duper gay friendly. If the GOP wouldn't be so nuts I doubt USA would be as gay friendly today. Human psychology works in dichotomies (also Hegel's insight).
What the fuck is with this tortured faux-taoist reflection? The right-wing take on gays isn't particularly relevant with how the left-wing is on gays. At some point, it became apparent that something was wrong and there was a progressive move to change the social issue.

Typically there needs to be a social epiphany for change to start. This matters from every aspect of life. From "how should we treat gays" to "should rivers really be burning" to "whales in tanks"? When there is a click, things move forward, at least for some of us.

You dichotomy idea is bunk. It is about circles. Conservatives work with smaller social circles (which evolves into an us v them) than liberals. Typically why conservatives need that gay daughter to wake up and get on the empathy train, where as liberals need a less in your face example for empathy.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,531
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I haven't used up my give away articles, so I'd like to share an editorial written by Charles Blow, who is both Black and gay. I think he did a pretty good job of expressing the horror that is going on in the US, especially when it comes to the rights of the LGBTQ community. The article is available to anyone interested in reading the entire piece. I'm just quoting a few pertinent lines, to give an idea of the oppressive things that the GOP is trying to do to our country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/...ohCLo9Gk76ZxQfl8_Ez_xIkQ-JZycA&smid=url-share

This past weekend, the Republican Party in Texas voted on an outrageous platform that not only denies the results of the 2020 presidential election, but also rejects gay marriage and seeks to “protect” minors until they turn 17 against “predatory sexual behaviors,” such as drag queens reading stories aloud to children.
Drag queens are predators, trans women are a threat and gay marriage is a violation of the “natural order”: This is all part of the widening and re-energized attack by Republicans on L.G.B.T.Q. people and culture in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges guaranteeing a right to same-sex marriage.
The ruling was heralded as a major civil rights victory by its proponents, but many opponents of gay rights saw it as a lost battle in a war, not the loss of the war. For them, gay marriage is too big a development to simply accept.



These attacks were never going to remain focused only on trans people. (Even if they did, it would still be a horrific attack on human rights.) Now, we are witnessing the inevitable result, as Republican legislators widen the attacks to queerness itself.
Just this year, we saw Florida pass its “Don’t Say Gay” bill.
Make no mistake, this is all part of a renewed, broad-based attack on gay rights and gay culture, to stanch the rise of young people who are coming out. And if you think a right once established by the court can’t be rescinded by the court, look no further than the expected ruling coming from the court on abortion.
There is no finality in the battle for civil rights. Wins don’t stay won. They must be defended and can sometimes be reversed.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The ruling was heralded as a major civil rights victory by its proponents, but many opponents of gay rights saw it as a lost battle in a war, not the loss of the war. For them, gay marriage is too big a development to simply accept.
Like abortion. But expediently for them, the same sections of the Constitution protect both rights, so if they get a winning streak, it won't take forty years per right; they can degrade American citizenship much more efficiently than that.

These attacks were never going to remain focused only on trans people.
Did anyone really believe that? If so, they were fools. The conservative Christian agenda has never been a secret, it is preached out loud every Sunday from a cursed dais in a corrupted church somehere in town, in every city in America. I hope the destruction of Roe wakes up some of the fools. I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

Personally I think even Loving and Brown are in danger, at least somewhere down the road. I'm accused of paranoia every time I bring it up, but white supremacist views are sneaking into all of the same sermons. Every time a view like that is voiced but unchallenged, a grain of sand drops into the lower chamber. We should never have allowed ourselves to grow so complacent.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I actually agree with this bit from the article:
Dennis Prager, writing in National Review, argued that the ruling completed “the secularization of America” and sealed “the end of America as the Founders envisioned it.”
I don't often agree with Prager, I would note. But on this, he is right. When the Supreme Court conceded against public sympathy and against their own personal sympathies that the rights of the 14th Amendment applied to all citizens, it was a major symbolic action, a nail in the coffin of the aristocratic and authoritarian views of the nation's founders. Their vision was of a strictly bounded freedom, freedom only for a certain restricted class of electors belonging to a certain sex, faith, and class. When we fought and won the war to defeat slavery, it became possible for the United States to overcome this original sin, and become a true and unhypocritical champion of universal freedom. But it wasn't until the power of this Amendment was formally confirmed - not just in this case but in all cases wherein it was challenged from Gideon to Loving to Obergefell- that the ghosts of our imperfect Founders were finally put to sleep for a season. It matters that their decision was unpopular. It matters that it was requirement of law, not just conscience. That is the very manifestation of a secular, not theocratic, state. Our state. One that took the seeming but non-binding promise of the Constitutional preamble, and turned it into settled law: an ever more perfect union, dedicated to justice and tranquility for all citizens.

Of course, I disagree with Prager that we should worship the Constitution, or the often contradictory and hypocritical intentions of its authors. One idea that they did have right was that no government that rules forever if they do not have the consent of the governed. There can be no non-negotiable artifacts of governance in a supposed democracy, and if the people find a structure of authority untenable, it is an inevitability that they will eventually tear it down.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I
Woke is dumb. It's virtue theatre. It needs to stop before a proudly non-woke fascist grabs power. That's where we're heading now.

Anti-wokeism is beyond dumb and beyond virtue-singaling. At its best, it is based on misperceptions, over-generalization and throws out the baby with the bath water. But at its worst, anti-wokeism is a tool of fascists and white supremacists, an under-current of anti-anti-racism that has always existed in American society and always utilized to push back against progress and bring in the racists and fascists. That isn't where we're heading now. It's where we have always been.

On the other hand, being woke is actually a good thing. While a particular individual and individuals in particular instance(s) can mean well and be wrong about something and those individual(s) can be "woke" and further the nature of the instance can be race/gender/sexuality/etc related, it does not mean that being woke is incorrect, just that those individuals are wrong about whatever it is they are wrong about. It should come as no surprise to rational people in this forum because to be open--most people aren't really that smart or logical and the kinds of people making the most noise are often people trying to fit a square peg into a round hole....especially when you only have 180 characters to type out your message, the most outrageous gets the feels, and we live in a world of instant gratification and bubbles.

While our struggle is to always fight fascism and anti-anti-racism, we also need to occasionally write on issues where our allies disagree, where they may be wrong, and to fight the misinformation superhighway.
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.

I am not sure that I like being called "woke" because it implies the assumption that I have only had the feelings that I have since the start of the woke movement. This would be a false characterization. I did not need to be "awoken" because I was never given a chance to fall asleep. I would be glad if I ever did have a real opportunity to rest, but that is not nigh.

I also used to have woke values. I've had woke values my entire life up until a couple of years ago. I grew in a city where gay bashing was a popular past time. At some point in the 90'ies it swung over to the other side, and people who had a problem with homosexuality were socially excluded. Bullied.

I still have to live with being transgender, and I actually am justified in doing whatever I have to do in order to make sure that I am safe in my day-to-day life. Literally everything else will always come second, and it should.

That's completely reasonable. And should be how everybody lives their lives. But there are limits to how much we're all willing to sacrifice for other people's safety. And that's where the wokes run into conflict with society. And the idiotic demand that everybody needs to understand every difficulty every other group is going through is bizarre. It's reasonable that experts in the field have that degree of understanding is reasonable. But for the population at large? No.

For one thing, I again resent being called "woke." I am a queer that grew up in the 1980's and 1990's, and furthermore, I am also a zoo, which gives me additional personal insight into the anatomy of hate. My views on this subject are based on half of a lifetime of experience, not on a popular ideology.

I don't see this as a problem. I see this as the perfect example of Hegelian dialectics. In the olden days (1980'ies) the social pressure was to hate gays. In the 1990'ies it became increasingly apparent that this was a dumb value. It was a value borne out of world with high mortality and keeping farm land within the family was important. In a world where this was a non-factor it felt like increasingly like an antiquated and dysfunctional value. We slid over to a world where the social pressure was to accept gays.

Thesis, anti-thesis and the next step synthesis. A marriage of these two positions. Ie we stop bullying people into any position on the gay question. And our societies find a new problem we can fight for or against, to create a dichotomy about. Perhaps global warming and energy efficiency? Or how to handle Russia?

Hegelianism is cancer. I am not under any obligation to compromise in regard to my own safety or the security of my livelihood under any conditions whatsoever.

Hegel (together with Smith) is the foundation for Marx, who in turn is the foundational ideology of the left. If you reject Hegel, what are you basing your narrative of history on? What's your theory on how cultures change? If Hegelian dialecticism isn't true then how do you explain shifts in values over time? Are you using the Great Man theory of historical change? That wouldn't be very woke of you.

Jonathan Swift beat them to it. I am also interested in the writings of Jean-Jaques Rosseau, William Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, David Ricardo, and Jeremy Bentham. I trace my views back to the early anarchists and the radical subculture that was active in and near the Clerkenwell district. Early 19th Century Clerkenwell was actually a pretty fucking awesome place to be.

The nearest I come to any interest in the philosophy of Lutheran countries is that of Knut Wicksell, and Knut Wicksell spent some time in prison on charges of blasphemy for making fun of Lutherans and making them cry. Hegel was a douche-flute, and Karl Marx was a homophobic piece of shit that I would have given an orbital fracture if I had had a chance.

Woke had a function when gays were being murdered in the streets. Woke solves no problems today. Instead it needs to continually invent bullshit problems. You know... like fascists have to continually find someone to blame their failures on the wokes need to continually expand the reach of the patriarchy. Occupy Wall Street was utter bollocks. What exactly has BLM achieved?

Gay people and transgender people are still harassed and beleaguered in many parts of my country. We currently have a US state where the families of transgender kids are literally being persecuted by the government, and we have another attempting to slap their doctors with decades long prison sentences. Anti-LGBTQ violence is becoming a problem again in many districts. We may always need to work to keep these problems under control. What we have learned, over the past couple of decades, is that the pursuit of LGBTQ rigthts is not a "once and done" kind of deal, but it is something we have to maintain for generation after generation.

I think the fight for LGBTQ acceptance and equal rights is something that will never end. Because people who don't share your experience or problem will never get it. That's just part of the human experience. Reading books from a different historical period can teach you that. They have problems we will never be able to related to, or even understand why it's a problem. I will never know how it is to be transgendered. I will never know how experiences differ between transsexuals and transvestites. And that's ok. It sucks to be weird (not the norm). That's just how it's going to be. Forever.

Accepting that is not the same thing as condoning violence against queers.

You are again engaging in the naturalistic fallacy. You are again espousing the idea that, just because it is naturally harder for LGBTQ to have a good quality of life in a world where they are the minority, then we must be obligated to accept that as our ideal existence or our only possible existence. You are wrong. As a matter of fact, minority groups can live very well if they work very hard on improving their quality of life, and this has been proved in spades in districts where LGBTQ have succeeded at living a better quality of life, on average, than their straight counterparts. We do not really have to accept a terrible quality of life, and if we choose to try to live well, then we can. Jewish people in the United States have also proved this point: they have higher average incomes than most Americans. This is not because they are Jewish, but this is because the Jewish community, in the United States, have traditionally worked very hard to have an excellent quality of life. but this activist part of their culture is actually a response to the historical persecution against Jewish people. The only reason why there is any substance to the "stereotypical rich Jew" is that, culturally, Jewish people are very vocal about the idea that they are people that have escaped from a place where they had fewer opportunities, and they teach a sense of gratitude for the opportunities that they have where they currently are. This is not something they are born with, but it is something that they are taught. In places where the LGBTQ community are doing particularly well, they are basically just doing the same thing. They teach the idea that they are fortunate to have better opportunities, and they are grateful for those opportunities. Gratitude for the opportunities they have and a sense of determination to seize upon those opportunities has made them prosperous.

The reason that say you are committing the naturalistic fallacy is that you are implying that, as a transgender woman and therefore a minority, I should just be at peace with having a lower quality of life than straight people, just because it is natural that I, as a minority, would have fewer opportunities. You are wrong. I do not really have to accept having a shitty life. Instead, I and other transgender people can choose to work hard to develop a good relationship with society, and we can choose to work harder than everybody else to turn that relationship into opportunity. If we choose to have a great quality of life, then we can, even if we might have to overcome longer odds than others.

The idea behind what you call "woke," which is not term that I like, is that I am choosing to try to make my life good. I reject the idea that I should have to truckle to the tyranny of evil men, but instead, I think I can choose to fight, campaign, and politic for opportunities to make an extremely good life for myself.

If you are an evil person, you might choose to put barriers in my way, but I do not have to accept that it is a normal or good thing for you to do that. Instead, I could choose to try to make sure that you are punished for that. I could choose to develop my alliances in society well enough that, when you choose to try to put barriers in my way, that could really have serious negative consequences for you, and you could even lose your livelihood. If you choose to get in the way of me pursuing a good quality of life, then I am justified in hurting you for doing so.

You are attempting to make an argument that I should just accept having a terrible quality of life, and I reject it. I would rather destroy your life because you choose to be an unjust man. While that takes me more effort than just choosing to truckle, I nevertheless choose justice.

Just because it takes me more effort to live well does not mean that it is rational for me to choose to live poorly.

In Hegelian terms, woke is the anti-thesis to the previous intolerant conservative norms. And when any paradigm achieves total dominance it becomes destructive and suffocating. That's what woke has become today. I'm not against woke because I hate gays (or blacks). I'm against woke because I think it's role has been played out. We don't need it anymore. We will never achieve total equality in society. It's a dumb goal.

There is no universe where I am obligated to tolerate SOME amount of endangerment of my life, SOME amount of cruel discrimination in my everyday life, or SOME amount of indignity in my existence. There will be no compromise under any conditions whatsoever. The exact amount of cruelty I am ever obligated to tolerate is precisely bupkis.

You're not obligated to. But your choices aren't about making it stop or not. Your choices are about living your life in a state of victimhood or trying to find some beauty in a cruel world.

Everybody's life is endangered every day. Cruel discrimination is a part of everybody's life, consciously or not. Indignity is just a fact of life for everyone. You're not obligated to tolerate it. But your choice is to accept it or turn bitter. That was the insight of Buddha. He wasn't wrong.

I am currently living in an educated area where social justice is actually the norm. The only reason why my career has not advanced farther than it has is that it took me several years to accept that it was real. Even though I intellectually understood that things worked differently here, it took me time to learn to trust that the system worked differently here. Once I did, my life was actually going extremely well.

My experience has been that, in my area, it has really opened up opportunities for me that people in my area have been championing social justice for generations. This has made it possible for me to start, however belatedly, living a normal life. It has definitely been worthwhile that activists in my area have worked so hard.

I would not really say that I am bitter at all, but I would actually say that, for the first time, I recognize the real, unwitting wisdom behind my maternal grandmother's advice: I really do deserve to benefit if I have worked hard to make my life better. A part of the work that I have to do, though, has to be social justice activism. That is the investment that I need to make in making sure that I have a good quality of life.

In my area, that investment has paid incredible dividends, so I really have nothing whatsoever to be bitter about. I see a successful investment that I have begun to try to take part in contributing to, and I am justified in feeling good about that investment.

The primary fault that I can find with the LGBTQ community, over the past decade, is that the community had become complacent. The past year's political abuses, by the GOP, are hopefully going to be enough to jolt them awake while they are still able to organize openly.

I also happen to be a member of the zooey community, and we are in a much more difficult position. By comparison, it is very hard for us to organize openly, and as a consequence, the growth of our organizations and of our community has been painfully slow, although a few brave individuals have succeeded at establishing underground communities. It is feasible but difficult to organize under such circumstances. What happened to the zooey community was that, back in 1991, the leadership of our online community took an officially conservative and reclusive stance insofar as their relationship with society, and we have documented evidence of this. It is going to take us generations to undo the damage that was caused by this policy. I can tell you first hand that the conditions that this created for us have made it very difficult for us to get anything done whatsoever.

The LGBTQ community had similar problems when the sodomy laws, in the United States, were more widespread and were being more widely enforced. Largely, we had to organize in secret. The majority of our organizations were clandestine, underground organizations. When LGBTQ were at serious risk of damage to their reputations, their livelihoods, or their safety as a consequence of the sodomy laws, getting anything done in the community at all was a mission. We had to be careful of what we said about anybody in our community because, for some of us, getting outed could have catastrophic consequences. It therefore took an absolutely insane amount of trouble just to get the simplest things done.

The GOP has every intention of attacking Lawrence v. Texas. They have made it clear that they do not hold any of the progressive advances, in their rulings, to be permanent, They have no intention whatsoever of leaving the Lawrence v. Texas ruling intact or unaltered, and they have no intention of leaving Obergefell v. Hodges intact or unaltered. They have every intention of attacking those rulings the first chance they get.

The Texas GOP's current platform is particularly dangerous:


The LGBTQ community needs to respond aggressively to a party that has this kind of platform.



It's always going to suck more to be gay/queer than straight.

This is actually false. In the most educated areas in the country, LGBTQ tend to actually have a very good quality of life, and in some parts of the country, gay men and lesbians actually have an even higher life-expectancy than straight people just because, culturally, they make a higher investment in their health in those parts of the country. Stepping it out to make an effort to live well is worth doing. This is a natural way for them to behave: they have worked very hard to have the same opportunities as others, so it is natural for them to work just as hard to take advantage of those opportunities. However, this shows that it is worthwhile to try.


The LGBTQ community became complacent because it won.

I believe that this reflects a poor understanding of what happened. The LGBTQ community, in the western world, became complacent because they overestimated how permanent their victories were. I think that it was really harmful when supporters of LGBTQ rights started saying things like, "It's 2022" as if it were an absolute that homophobia and transphobia inherently needed to stop being possible after a certain date. This was a reckless way to behave, and it has created a serious problem.

All it proves is that what you call "woke" is something that we should have done more to embrace.

That's what happens to any movement that managed to grab power. The core problem of any special interest group is that most people don't share that interest. Today the LGBTQ has disproportionate power and influence in relation to their numbers. That can only be a temporary situation.

All social advances are "temporary" as long as nobody is working hard to sustain them.

It's going to get worse for the LGBTQ community going forward.

In my area, at least, you are quite mistaken. I live in a very progressive area, and I am thankful that the LGBTQ community, in my area, has been working hard to keep fighting to improve our relations with society in my area. Most people, where I live, are even more educated on transgender rights than I am as a transgender person. I did not know that it was becoming normal here to ask people their preferred pronouns until I heard it from a straight person that was apparently very well educated. Locally, our lives are still improving, and this proves that it can be done.

Once straights realize that the pay-off for promoting gay rights is low, they're going to stop.

The reason why straight people, in my area, came out in support of LGBTQ equality was that they never liked living under oppression, either. As a matter of fact, the environment that people grow up in, at the local schools in my area, is a lot different from the environment that I grew up in, and I have heard this from professional educators. Young people of middle school age are a lot less resistant to touch, in this area, than they ever were in the past or in areas that are not as progressive. In an environment where nobody is saying, "You can't do that because it makes you queer," the environment that young people are growing up in is a lot warmer and a lot more supportive. The general payoff has actually been tremendous. People in my area grow up to be much more well-adjusted. That just also happens to be good for queers.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
Being openly a straight ally for gay rights is only fun if you get a pack on the back for doing it. The privileged are never actually willing to sacrifice privilege unless they are forced to... by an army.

The "army" includes straight people that are also tired of living under a system where they are judged and harassed just for being themselves. Many straight people, in our society, are tired of being told they should not be allowed to pursue a close friendship just because that friendship MIGHT turn into a queer relationship. Many straight people, in our society, are tired of being told how they ought to dress and prevent themselves because it MIGHT be construed as gender-ambiguous. When it is okay even if it turns out you ARE gay or bisexual or if you have a few isolated gay experiences when you are young, everybody is actually a lot happier as a consequence. That sense of liberation actually benefits everybody.

What you would be wrong about is the assumption that the queers are alone or lacking in allies. We might be more seriously affected than others by an oppressive environment, but an oppressive environment is everybody's problem. An oppressive environment stunts the emotional development of everybody's kids, not just queer kids.

Right now I get the impression that the gay rights movement are utterly delusional regarding how power dynamics work. Which is interesting considering how many of them have taken gender studies. That's all about studying how power dynamics work in practice.

Once the conservative backlash against LGBTQ movement has reached it's apex, it's going to be less fun to be queer. And we're heading for that at full speed. I want to emphasize that I am not for this. I'm a big friend of the gay/queer community. It's just that I want to be realistic about this. And this is how I see it.

What is currently happening really looks a lot like the wave of racism that preceded the Black Lives Matter movement in the western world. The Black Lives Matter movement actually was successful as a response against the rising tide of racist hate groups in the United States and western Europe, and even though racism continues to be a problem, racist discourse no longer has the kind of political legitimacy that it had prior to the Black Lives Matter movement.

The point is that you are falsely assuming that those conservative movements are these invincible political juggernauts, and it's not true. They can be defeated, and they have been defeated. A powerful political movement to assert the necessity of social justice works extremely well.

Because the world will always be designed for whatever is the most common way to be (who therefore have most of the power).

You are making an is-ought error, here. You are assuming falsely that, just because it is hard to avoid minority groups getting disregarded by society, then a society where minority groups are disregarded must be the most ideal possible society. You are committing what Hume would have called the "naturalistic fallacy."

I don't think I am. It's not an ideal. It's just how (I think) things work. Everybody likes being a hero in their own story. EVERYBODY. If straights stop being treated like heroes for accepting gays, (because it's become normal) they're going to automatically stop accepting gays.

The fact that the American GOP and American Evangelicals are so fucking nuts, is a big reason liberals in USA are still so super duper gay friendly. If the GOP wouldn't be so nuts I doubt USA would be as gay friendly today. Human psychology works in dichotomies (also Hegel's insight).

The United States is very much a patchwork. I eventually stopped trying to lecture you about how Swedish society works because it occurred to me how strange it was to attempt to position myself as an authority on a society that I have never interacted with first-hand. I actually do know what I am talking about as someone that has lived in several different types of subcultures within the United States.

I only have to drive for two hours, possibly less, to find another type of area, in my state, where education is not so highly valued, and I would find my life, as a queer person, to be substantially harder. In the United States, it doesn't just matter what state you live in, but it matters what metro area you live in. Even within a metro area, the cultures between one neighborhood and another can be like black-and-white. This is a very confusing country. This is not one place, but it is several places at once in the same geographical area.

That's not a sign of an evil uncaring world.

Actually, it is. I actually do judge our society for the mistreatment of its minority groups. The way that our society has historically behaved toward LGBTQ has been barbaric and unpardonable.

You might as well say that slavery was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 19th Century. The rage of the abolitionists was well-justified, and people in the American south that defended slavery really were people that deserved to die: they gave up their right to life in the moment they said that it was okay to keep a human being as property, and they do not really deserve to be mourned or to have monuments to honor them. The times do not excuse them. They were filth.

You might as well say that leaving the poor to starve to death without doing anything at all to improve their situation was not a sign of an evil or uncaring world in the 18th Century. You would be wrong. Jonathan Swift's harsh criticisms of his society's treatment of the poor, during that time-period, were well-justified. His extreme misanthropy was well-justified. He had a negative opinion toward his society because his society was a cesspool.

The injustices of society always deserve the most harsh censure, and those that are brave enough to speak out against injustice when speaking out is unpopular should be remembered as heroes.

You can chose to have this attitude. But you're not doing yourself any favours. It'll make you bitter about the world. It'll also make you less able to change the world because nobody likes an asshole. If queers want straight allies they need to constantly be mindful of, what's in it for the straights. If not, they're not going to have those allies for long.

“Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.”
/Ruth Bader Ginsburg

My experience tells me otherwise. My experience tells me that standing up for a more just society actually helps me to improve my quality of life, and I am living in an area where people have been working on this for generations. There are many locals, in my area, that have an even more enlightened perspective than I.


That's just the result of being mindful about not wasting resources. People are lazy. Not evil. It's got to be ok to be lazy.

If it is not worth your while to treat a human being with the dignity that is due to a human being, then your own life is worth nothing, and there is no reason whatsoever why I should care if you live or die. You always have time for treating your fellow human beings with dignity, or your time is not worth anything at all.

There was a time when it might have been expedient for you to tolerate slavery. There was a time when it would have been expedient for you to have turned a blind eye to the economist Knut Wicksell getting treated as a criminal for his beliefs. Yes, it is always more expedient for you to ignore injustice, and it is always shameful for you to ignore injustice.

If you would put expediency first and justice last, then you have lived for nothing.

Says the person who earlier had a problem with the naturalistic fallacy.

Slavery is still a problem in the world. A big problem. It's not something we (as a species) ever stopped doing. We stopped doing it in certain places. But it's still going strong. Denying it is being delusional. Most people today tolerate slavery. Because in the big bag of problems in the west, slavery in foreign lands, is low on the list of priorities.

Western gays do the same thing Western straights do. They care about problems important to them. That's fine. But if you think that the mainstream culture will keep putting queer special interests on a pedestal, you're in for a rude awaking when the next popular trend of issues hits us.

I remember reading an article about feminism in India and how the Indian delegates to Western feminist conferences didn't understand how Western feminists could get so worked up about, what they saw as, complete bullshit issues. The Indian delegates had a laser focus on stopping Honour Killings and not getting murdered by their arranged marriage husbands. We all do this. We're all blind to problems we don't share. That's completely normal and has to be acceptable in society, or nothing will change.

We have been successful at crushing slavery, in the western world, because we spent centuries fighting against it, going back to the 1700's United Kingdom. The abolitionists did not really have to tolerate living in a society where slavery was normal. They did not really have to tolerate living in a world where human beings could be considered to be property. They fought to change this aspect of their society, and they were successful.

A part of why they knew that they should, though, was that they listened to Hume. They listened to Hume's cautions against the naturalistic fallacy. We do not have to see it as ideal for people to own people just because it is inevitable that this practice will always exist in some places in the world. We do not have to exalt it as a sacred part of human nature, but we are within our rights to condemn it.

In Sweden today healthcare professionals aren't allowed to use gendered language about patients. That's just bizarre. It's stupid that the vast majority of a population has to be instructed, to make an effort, to use a language that only acts to confuse life and make all communication take a little bit longer. And trans people who have an issue with this... Let's just say... if they find this traumatic, then they have more serious problems than their gender.

It would be much easier if your country were to start transitioning young people in their early teens, so they would actually appear and sound to be the gender that they identify with, but your country's medical authorities are currently living in the 19th Century, where the rights of transgender kids are concerned. Do not hold up your own country as an ideal. They have fallen far behind in regard to transgender rights, and transgender people are treated extremely badly in your country's media. Your country has fallen from grace.

This is hard to explain to an American, but Sweden is a collectivist culture. This means that the Swedish cultural values can switch on a dime. If our leaders change values they can count on the vast majority pf Swedish people getting onboard pretty fast. Unless you have lived in a collectivist culture, you're not going to get it. Our democracy, works differently than yours.

In the 90'ies Sweden switched from gay hating and gay bashing to gay loving in an extremely short period of time. Months. We also switched from racist in the 1950'ies to not racist in the 1960'ies equally fast. There's been a monumental shift in Swedish politics just these last five years. Swedish values have shifted. It's hard to say where it all will land, and it's not as simple as it going more to the right. But Sweden will be a lot more conservative, racist and sex negative going forward. While also more drug friendly. The change has been noticeable. The upcoming election is going to be interesting.

If you thought it's bad for queers now in Sweden, it's going to get worse. A lot worse, after the next election. Or better. It depends on your values. But Swedes in general are not happy about that it's so easy to transition in Sweden. It's not really. But the public perception is that it is.

Unless you live in an individualist culture, you are not going to get it. The United States is a patchwork nightmare from the perspective of someone that does not live here. I grew up in a very macho sort of culture, and life for queers was actually extremely dangerous. I actually had serious culture shock after moving to the area where I currently live.

Over here, I have the power to choose to live in an area where I have more opportunities.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,290
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Personally I think even Loving and Brown are in danger, at least somewhere down the road. I'm accused of paranoia every time I bring it up, but white supremacist views are sneaking into all of the same sermons. Every time a view like that is voiced but unchallenged, a grain of sand drops into the lower chamber. We should never have allowed ourselves to grow so complacent.
Yeah, they'd love to get rid of both of those.

For a long time I used Loving as an illustration of why I'm a strong defender of gay marriage despite not being gay. For those of you who don't know the background: My wife is not of my race and was not a citizen nor permanent resident when we became involved. Marriage was the only route to be together and it wasn't that far back that the Supreme Court struck down the race-based marriage laws.

The recent crap made me actually dig into the old laws to see what the situation would have been for us without Loving. I'm glad that in our case the laws had already been repealed (and the crazy thing that when they were in effect they prohibited any marriage by a mixed-race person--couldn't marry a white because they had prohibited blood, couldn't marry another race because they had white blood) and somehow missed her anyway. I wouldn't put it past those scumbags to repeal Loving then declare invalid any marriages only permitted by Loving--and then any green cards/citizenship thus obtained. (And never mind that nations are not allowed to take away citizenship from someone who doesn't have any other citizenship. You can't even renounce US citizenship without having another citizenship.)
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Yeah, they'd love to get rid of both of those.

For a long time I used Loving as an illustration of why I'm a strong defender of gay marriage despite not being gay. For those of you who don't know the background: My wife is not of my race and was not a citizen nor permanent resident when we became involved. Marriage was the only route to be together and it wasn't that far back that the Supreme Court struck down the race-based marriage laws.
Well, they certainly won't have all of our marriages without a fight. This is a time for standing together, calling out double-speak, and above all organizing.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Being openly a straight ally for gay rights is only fun if you get a pack on the back for doing it. The privileged are never actually willing to sacrifice privilege unless they are forced to... by an army.

The "army" includes straight people that are also tired of living under a system where they are judged and harassed just for being themselves. Many straight people, in our society, are tired of being told they should not be allowed to pursue a close friendship just because that friendship MIGHT turn into a queer relationship. Many straight people, in our society, are tired of being told how they ought to dress and prevent themselves because it MIGHT be construed as gender-ambiguous. When it is okay even if it turns out you ARE gay or bisexual or if you have a few isolated gay experiences when you are young, everybody is actually a lot happier as a consequence. That sense of liberation actually benefits everybody.

You're preaching to the choir. I don't disagree with any of this. I agree that the fight for gay liberation is also the fight for straight liberation. We all win if the queers win.

But I also understand that not everybody shares these values. A lot of people.

I also don't think "a system where they are judged and harassed just for being themselves" is necessarily a bad thing. Social norms have evolved over time because following them is likely to sort your life out in a way that works long term, for the vast majority of people. I think that's why they are norms. These norms aren't always good for people who aren't normal. Most social norms are geared toward caring for each other. Which is fundamentally a good thing. So I don't think they're the same social prison of evil that you do.


What you would be wrong about is the assumption that the queers are alone or lacking in allies. We might be more seriously affected than others by an oppressive environment, but an oppressive environment is everybody's problem. An oppressive environment stunts the emotional development of everybody's kids, not just queer kids.

I don't think queers lack allies. But straight queer allies will only be queer allies if there's something in it for them. Straight allies are essentially self serving, as is everybody. The trans community is a super duper small minority. They have at the moment an extreme focus and elevated status in society, as far as importance goes. I think the trans assumption that we're on a kind of social progression where the trans community will only get more freedoms is a complete fantasy. I highly doubt we will get more trans friendly world than we have right now.

It's simply a question of tribalism. Trans people have such a unique set of problems it's simply not relatable to most other people. So it's not going to be on the radar of most people. That's not because they're evil. It's because all people live busy and only have energy to focus on things immediately relevant to them.


Right now I get the impression that the gay rights movement are utterly delusional regarding how power dynamics work. Which is interesting considering how many of them have taken gender studies. That's all about studying how power dynamics work in practice.

Once the conservative backlash against LGBTQ movement has reached it's apex, it's going to be less fun to be queer. And we're heading for that at full speed. I want to emphasize that I am not for this. I'm a big friend of the gay/queer community. It's just that I want to be realistic about this. And this is how I see it.

What is currently happening really looks a lot like the wave of racism that preceded the Black Lives Matter movement in the western world. The Black Lives Matter movement actually was successful as a response against the rising tide of racist hate groups in the United States and western Europe, and even though racism continues to be a problem, racist discourse no longer has the kind of political legitimacy that it had prior to the Black Lives Matter movement.

The point is that you are falsely assuming that those conservative movements are these invincible political juggernauts, and it's not true. They can be defeated, and they have been defeated. A powerful political movement to assert the necessity of social justice works extremely well.

I'm not saying they are invincible political juggernauts. I'm saying that the way social progress works is that it's two steps forward and one step back. All the time. Now it's going to be a step back for a while. And then two steps forward in twenty years or so.

I think Black Lives Matter movement was complete bullshit. It's popularity and it being embraced by almost everybody proves, if anything, that the movement is unnecessary. Which, I guess, is nice. I'm not saying racism isn't a thing or that it isn't hard to be black in a majority white world. But it's more nuanced problems than anything a mass movement like BLM can fix.


Because the world will always be designed for whatever is the most common way to be (who therefore have most of the power).

You are making an is-ought error, here. You are assuming falsely that, just because it is hard to avoid minority groups getting disregarded by society, then a society where minority groups are disregarded must be the most ideal possible society. You are committing what Hume would have called the "naturalistic fallacy."

I don't think I am. It's not an ideal. It's just how (I think) things work. Everybody likes being a hero in their own story. EVERYBODY. If straights stop being treated like heroes for accepting gays, (because it's become normal) they're going to automatically stop accepting gays.

The fact that the American GOP and American Evangelicals are so fucking nuts, is a big reason liberals in USA are still so super duper gay friendly. If the GOP wouldn't be so nuts I doubt USA would be as gay friendly today. Human psychology works in dichotomies (also Hegel's insight).

The United States is very much a patchwork. I eventually stopped trying to lecture you about how Swedish society works because it occurred to me how strange it was to attempt to position myself as an authority on a society that I have never interacted with first-hand. I actually do know what I am talking about as someone that has lived in several different types of subcultures within the United States.

I only have to drive for two hours, possibly less, to find another type of area, in my state, where education is not so highly valued, and I would find my life, as a queer person, to be substantially harder. In the United States, it doesn't just matter what state you live in, but it matters what metro area you live in. Even within a metro area, the cultures between one neighborhood and another can be like black-and-white. This is a very confusing country. This is not one place, but it is several places at once in the same geographical area.


I too have learned that any generalization about USA will be wrong in large parts of the country. USA is big.

Europe is the same when it comes to LGBTQ acceptance. Gays and queers move to specific very tolerant cities, that become super tolerant. And while the rest of the lands are depopulated with gays, they will necessarily become less gay friendly. That's not weird. Gays, just like anyone, prefer spending time with people just like them. It's just basic human psychology.


My experience tells me otherwise. My experience tells me that standing up for a more just society actually helps me to improve my quality of life, and I am living in an area where people have been working on this for generations. There are many locals, in my area, that have an even more enlightened perspective than I.

In that case I am happy for you. If it makes you happy, keep doing it.



Says the person who earlier had a problem with the naturalistic fallacy.

Slavery is still a problem in the world. A big problem. It's not something we (as a species) ever stopped doing. We stopped doing it in certain places. But it's still going strong. Denying it is being delusional. Most people today tolerate slavery. Because in the big bag of problems in the west, slavery in foreign lands, is low on the list of priorities.

Western gays do the same thing Western straights do. They care about problems important to them. That's fine. But if you think that the mainstream culture will keep putting queer special interests on a pedestal, you're in for a rude awaking when the next popular trend of issues hits us.

I remember reading an article about feminism in India and how the Indian delegates to Western feminist conferences didn't understand how Western feminists could get so worked up about, what they saw as, complete bullshit issues. The Indian delegates had a laser focus on stopping Honour Killings and not getting murdered by their arranged marriage husbands. We all do this. We're all blind to problems we don't share. That's completely normal and has to be acceptable in society, or nothing will change.

We have been successful at crushing slavery, in the western world, because we spent centuries fighting against it, going back to the 1700's United Kingdom. The abolitionists did not really have to tolerate living in a society where slavery was normal. They did not really have to tolerate living in a world where human beings could be considered to be property. They fought to change this aspect of their society, and they were successful.

That's a pretty rose tinted way to read history. What crushed slavery was free market capitalism, industrialism and the invention of tools like watches and artificial lights. It became unnecessary to force people to work. We created a system where people live in perpetual stress of not keeping up with the Joneses, so they become their own slavers. After about 1800, in a modern economy, having slaves was bad business. The abolitionist values came after the fact. Lots of people like to put a gloria on their heads for stuff they would have done anyway. The slave holding economy of the Confederacy was unsustainable well before the American civil war started. It only kept going out of tradition. But it was a dumb way to grow cotton even back then. American slavery would have ended with or without Lincoln.

Modern slavery is carried out in countries and regions that haven't been penetrated yet by modern economic systems. Or it's a civil war, and all social systems have collapsed. Once things are stable it'll stop.

But it's important that we understand that slavery wasn't stopped by people's high ideals. It was stopped because capitalists were greedy and wanted more money, and slavery was less profitable compared to employing free labour.


Unless you live in an individualist culture, you are not going to get it. The United States is a patchwork nightmare from the perspective of someone that does not live here. I grew up in a very macho sort of culture, and life for queers was actually extremely dangerous. I actually had serious culture shock after moving to the area where I currently live.

Over here, I have the power to choose to live in an area where I have more opportunities.

I have lived in USA. I have travelled and worked all over the world. USA is great for lots of reasons. Also not so great for other reasons. I don't hold up USA as some some sort of ideal society. The problem with giving people a lot of freedom is that a lot of people will use that freedom to be assholes. Every society has it's issues.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,531
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist

Considering that the worst or one of the worst persons on SCOTUS is in a mixed race marriage himself, it's hard for me to imagine that Loving would ever be threatened. Mixed race marriages are extremely common in the South and it appears to me as if the majority of people here have accepted that as normal. I am concerned about some of the other decisions being overturned. And, I certainly can understand your personal concerns.

All of the schools were I live are well integrated racially, much more so than they are in the Northeast. I can't imagine that changing. I don't think you're paranoid, you're just concerned. Then again, I live in a place where most neighborhoods are at least somewhat racially integrated.

I read another article this morning about how those who identify as LGBTQ are being threatened in many countries all over the world, the continent of Africa, with the exception of South Africa, being one of the worst. Despite some misunderstandings in a few of my previous posts, I fully support all minorities, and their civil rights.

I even once almost convinced my then 80 something year old mother to accept gay marriage as something that is perfectly natural. I didn't quite get her to that point, but she at least supported gay civil unions and never had any animosity towards gay folks. It was just too hard for her to understand why people of the same sex would want to marry. She always voted for Democrats too, despite some harassment from her fellow evangelicals. It's mostly conservative Christians who are the biggest threat to the civil rights of those outside their narrow little worldview. Social change happens slowly. Sadly, it sometimes breaks down quickly.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
You do love accusing people of this, but it is usually via assertion, never demonstration.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist

Considering that the worst or one of the worst persons on SCOTUS is in a mixed race marriage himself, it's hard for me to imagine that Loving would ever be threatened. Mixed race marriages are extremely common in the South and it appears to me as if the majority of people here have accepted that as normal. I am concerned about some of the other decisions being overturned. And, I certainly can understand your personal concerns.
Agreed. The issue at hand isn't Loving and Brown. It is the Masterpiece Cake case. That was when SCOTUS began creating the Constitutional Right to discriminate based on sincerely held religious beliefs. With Anti-Roe, it looks like the other issue will be intentionally vague rulings that provide no legal guidance for resolving the holes of liberty they tear open. It takes cases forever to get to the Supreme Court and by removing protections, things can't get that fast track of appeal to stay laws. So effectively when that tear is ripped further more by the states, it'll take years to deal with it.

Which is kind of the funny thing, because women will bleed to death because of the alt-right movement against sex in America... and Dr.Zoidberg is annoyed by the woke.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
No, there's a point there and it's not in subtext or context, but in the text.

It is a statement that to abdicate protection of some subgroup whose members still satisfies the basic responsibilities of personhood is to engender a philosophy that allows using anyone, including your own subgroup, to be thrown under the bus as it were.

Which is trivially, obviously, and clearly true.

The point is that currently, there are many groups of people who are not treated thus, and being agnostic or even ignostic to it is just not OK.

Sure, have a care to know when you can make change and when you can't, but to be woke is to accept that you have a responsibility to care, to let it be a little splinter in your mind wasting a bit of calories every day cogitating on.
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,670
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
Some people have endured suffering throughout human history. Millions of people have suffered starvation or served as slaves. In medieval England even the luxury of a warm bath was available only to the very richest aristocrats. I knew an American woman who had lived for decades in the 20th century with a festering infection — before the discovery of penicillin. Billions of people from the past would envy the lives that people complain about today.

Although segregated, over 100,000 black Americans served overseas with great dignity and courage during World War II. When faced with horrific casualties after the Battle of the Bulge, Eisenhower resisted demands that he allow black soldiers to replace casualties; but he ended up accepting black volunteers who served in all-black platoons.

Homosexuality was a capital crime in England for centuries, until 1861 when the penalty was reduced to life imprisonment. The American colonies followed English law by default but there were reforms. New Jersey was more tolerant of homosexuals after 1796 when they reduced the penalty for sodomy to "a fine and solitary confinement at hard labor for any term not exceeding twenty-one years." But as late as 1822 the State Law of Connecticut read "If any man lyeth with mankinde as he lyeth with a woman, both of them have committed abhomination, they both shall surely be put to death."

Even now there are many countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. The extreme punishment is often waived, but as recently as 2019 a man was hanged in Iran after being found guilty of having sex with another man.

The world is not a perfect place, but by now great progress has been made, even in racist America. People a century or two ago — or even a decade ago — would shake their heads in amazement to learn that activists today target a bicycle-lane icon that isn't carefully designed to be unisexual.

Women, homosexuals, and other oppressed groups have made tremendous progress. Am i opposed to even further progress for them? No.

But I do have a concern — a very real and urgent concern. The world, and specifically the U.S., face urgent dangers. We have a war in Europe, conflicts in Africa and Asia that could escalate into war, political turmoil in many countries, worsening climate change, rising inequality, and a real risk of sudden financial catastrophe. Grim and dire threats; humanity is at a major crossroads. Strong enlightened American leadership may not be enough, but without it we are doomed.

Yet to hear some talk, these real threats must give way to a concern that too few TV characters are lesbian, or that some road-sign icons show trousers instead of gender-neutral attire.

In less than five months Americans will go to the polls and, perhaps literally decide the future of human civilization. Millions of Americans will vote stupidly based on their annoyance with "wokeism." We can rant and rave at American stupidity — I will join in — but antagonizing these stupid voters is itself a stupid act.

Touting the "wokeist" agenda today is like a triage nurse who gives one patient a manicure while the patient in the next gurney is dying an agonizing death.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
"Subtext"? They just plainly laid out an anti-trans and homophobic platform for the new year, and dismantled the protections of the 9th and 14th amendments as well as the general principle of judicial precedent, all on the same day. There's no subtext here, it's just text. We did not choose this fight, but it is coming to us.

And if you think being annoyed to see rainbow donuts in a shop window is a good enough justification for people to "counter-react" by stripping fellow citizens of their rights, you're not on the side of the debate that you think you are.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
"Subtext"? They just plainly laid out an anti-trans and homophobic platform for the new year, and dismantled the protections of the 9th and 14th amendments as well as the general principle of judicial precedent, all on the same day. There's no subtext here, it's just text. We did not choose this fight, but it is coming to us.

And if you think being annoyed to see rainbow donuts in a shop window is a good enough justification for people to "counter-react" by stripping fellow citizens of their rights, you're not on the side of the debate that you think you are.
Why did you write any of that? You live in a fantasy world
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
"Subtext"? They just plainly laid out an anti-trans and homophobic platform for the new year, and dismantled the protections of the 9th and 14th amendments as well as the general principle of judicial precedent, all on the same day. There's no subtext here, it's just text. We did not choose this fight, but it is coming to us.

And if you think being annoyed to see rainbow donuts in a shop window is a good enough justification for people to "counter-react" by stripping fellow citizens of their rights, you're not on the side of the debate that you think you are.
Why did you write any of that? You live in a fantasy world
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Funny, this forum is usually lambasting me for my agnosticism on things. But, "Shall citizens of this nation be free and equal to one another?" is a question I'm happy to unequivocal on, so I am happy to be guilty as charged. Yes, I see equality under the law as a black and white issue; either everyone has it, at least aspirationally, or everyone is in danger. Whether or not they belong to the discriminated class of the day. When the government starts choosing which classes of citizens to afford basic civil rights to on the basis of religious-tinted moralism, everyone is in jeopardy.

Who exactly do you imagine would argue against you on this? Everybody agrees with this. What sets people apart is what they imply, ie the subtext. There's no way to ferret out the subtext or context from the above. You keep doing this. Spouting platitude slogans that mean nothing, and then end it with a conclusion that does not at all follow from the premise.

I think you are stuck in propaganda-land. You seem to communicate solely through liberal slogans (with meanings you don't seem to understand yourself) any anybody who doesn't use these exact same slogans is the enemy. For unclear reasons. I don't think you know yourself what you mean.
"Subtext"? They just plainly laid out an anti-trans and homophobic platform for the new year, and dismantled the protections of the 9th and 14th amendments as well as the general principle of judicial precedent, all on the same day. There's no subtext here, it's just text. We did not choose this fight, but it is coming to us.

And if you think being annoyed to see rainbow donuts in a shop window is a good enough justification for people to "counter-react" by stripping fellow citizens of their rights, you're not on the side of the debate that you think you are.
Why did you write any of that? You live in a fantasy world
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
@DrZoidberg I am going to cut down this tit for tat conversation because I think that we are wandering too far over too many different topics.

The "one step backwards" that you are talking about has been directly caused by your anti-woke crusade. You are not helpless to stop what is happening. You can give up your anti-woke crusade right now. You just have to recognize how dangerous and harmful it is. You just have to recognize how many people are going to get killed as a consequence of your crusade. You just have to take responsibility. You do not have to cause the amount of pain that is about to be caused for thousands of people in the western world. You do not have to choose evil.

You always have the ability to do the right thing, and when people get killed because you make the wrong decisions, it wasn't fate. It wasn't an invisible force of nature. You always had a choice. When transgender kids in your country kill themselves because they have been denied life-saving care, then the reason why those people are dead is because you chose expediency over those people's lives. Hundreds of people will die senselessly because you, individually, chose expediency over justice. At some point, you had to make the decision that those people deserved to die because your own expediency was more important to you.

If you would blame your country or your culture for the consequences of your own choices, then shame on you. You might as well say "the Devil made me do it." That is not the moral outlook of a good person.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
 
Last edited:

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
And yet now we all have friends, women, gays, trans folks, that will be criminalized and yes, murdered across the country I live and this sentiment will advance on the world.

Yes, there are important things happening as far as pride parades in Uganda, but the fact is those trans characters and women in trousers on TV, that's exactly how we keep that from coming back here.

Obviously we didn't do a good enough job early enough, and now we're here, where the revocation of sexual rights is nigh. This place I live in was ostensibly a first world country, and it's not going to stop at sexually atypical folks, it's going to continue.

The reason that pride parades in "the west" are not horror shows amounts largely to the efforts of folks to normalize, legalize, and communicate the concerns of minority communities, particularly minority sexual communities, but also to normalize attitudes and remove misperceptions towards people of color.

It is remarkably ignorant to think that the efforts to expand our culture to the point where the folks who would do that are fewer and further between are so meaningless.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
Maybe you should listen to your "friends" instead of bragging about knowing them.
 
Last edited:

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
It really tells you all you need to know about someone if they say, "My culture made me do it."
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
Maybe you should listen to your "friends" instead of bragging about knowing them.

So now you claim to know what the beliefs of my friend is better than I do. WTF is wrong with you? Real people don't fit neatly into your little ideological boxes.

If you are curious about his beliefs you can check out his podcast.


As a bonus I'll throw in a picture of me and a friend just before being go go dancers on his Stockholm Pride parade float.

Fun story from this event. Just before the picture is taken a woman comes up to me and asks if we would put gold paint over her body. She's wearing a crop top t-shirt that says "proud parent". She wants me to cover most of her body. Then she says "thank you I'd never let you do this to me if you weren't gay". I said I wasn't gay. She reeled back in shock and horror. "If you're not gay, what are you doing here?" "I'm here for the same reason you are." Then she calmed down and offered me a beer.

That night I ended up at a dinner where I was seated at the same table as the Saudi Arabian delegation. Learning all about how gays get laid over there. According to them, really easily.

The world isn't simple.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1656310402685.jpg
    FB_IMG_1656310402685.jpg
    86.5 KB · Views: 7

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
And yet now we all have friends, women, gays, trans folks, that will be criminalized and yes, murdered across the country I live and this sentiment will advance on the world.

Yes, there are important things happening as far as pride parades in Uganda, but the fact is those trans characters and women in trousers on TV, that's exactly how we keep that from coming back here.

Obviously we didn't do a good enough job early enough, and now we're here, where the revocation of sexual rights is nigh. This place I live in was ostensibly a first world country, and it's not going to stop at sexually atypical folks, it's going to continue.

The reason that pride parades in "the west" are not horror shows amounts largely to the efforts of folks to normalize, legalize, and communicate the concerns of minority communities, particularly minority sexual communities, but also to normalize attitudes and remove misperceptions towards people of color.

It is remarkably ignorant to think that the efforts to expand our culture to the point where the folks who would do that are fewer and further between are so meaningless.

Wokes aren't normalizing homosexuality. That's not what woke is about. Woke is a witch hunt on those who don't conform to saying the right politically correct phrases. Woke is intolerant. Woke is the death of dialogue and understanding.

Your position is absurd. You're in effect saying, if you don't support the woke cause then you hate gays. That does not follow at all. It's a dumb conclusion and a ridiculous dichotomy.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
I wish. Do they not get international news in Sweden or something?
USA isn't the world. USA is just one country among many. Your perspective is absurdly narrow and only specific to your back yard. But you behave as if your local ideological dogwhistles are universal for the entire planet. From my perspective you come across as incredibly arrogant
Well, of course my "woke politics" are a result of my concern about political actions in my own country. I live here. We're being actively persecuted by the power structure of this nation. That is the reality we are "Woke" to. That's what this is about. And recent events have proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that we did, in fact, need to remain wakeful.

But to go to your other point, are you trying to suggest that globally, political action on progressive causes is unneeded? That your "wokes" need to shut up, not just in places like the US and Sweden, but in Saudi Arabia and Uganda as well? Your anti-Woke hobby horse, in other words, is meant to apply to the entire planet, even in places where outright persecution, femincide, genocide, are occurring and being swept under the rug as we speak?

You have also made many, many references to your home country in this thread, so I'm not quite clear why referencing my country makes me arrogant, but referencing your country does not make you arrogant.
The problem is that you don't read and listen to the meaning of what is being said. You communicate through slogans. Slogans can only be local. Robbing yourself of the capacity to communicate with people outside your local little bubble. Which is the kind of thing we tend to dislike about conservatives.

It's also a very superficial way to communicate because slogans have all nuance removed for brevity. By necessity, it reduces the world to good and bad people.

I don't think you have any idea of what values I have.

They don't have wokes in Saudi Arabia and Uganda. Because they get murdered. The situation for gays in Uganda is near to my heart, since I have personal connection to it. A close friend of mine organised their first ever gay pride parade. He's still pretty traumatised from the horrors of it.

This is what I hate about wokes. It focuses on complete bullshit in a world that has real problems. It targets potential allies and calls them evil. It has absurd moral standards nobody can live up to.
Maybe you should listen to your "friends" instead of bragging about knowing them.

So now you claim to know what the beliefs of my friend is better than I do. WTF is wrong with you? Real people don't fit neatly into your little ideological boxes.

If you are curious about his beliefs you can check out his podcast.


As a bonus I'll throw in a picture of me and a friend just before being go go dancers on his Stockholm Pride parade float.

Fun story from this event. Just before the picture is taken a woman comes up to me and asks if we would put gold paint over her body. She's wearing a crop top t-shirt that says "proud parent". She wants me to cover most of her body. Then she says "thank you I'd never let you do this to me if you weren't gay". I said I wasn't gay. She reeled back in shock and horror. "If you're not gay, what are you doing here?" "I'm here for the same reason you are." Then she calmed down and offered me a beer.

That night I ended up at a dinner where I was seated at the same table as the Saudi Arabian delegation. Learning all about how gays get laid over there. According to them, really easily.

The world isn't simple.
Does your friend know that you go around attacking gay people on the internet for being too "woke" (in your royal opinion)?

I wouldn't care one whit about a straight person at Pride. Many if not most people at Pride are straight, at least around here. Nice little families come to gawk at the gays and wear feathers for the day. They're fine. But attacking people? Not cool.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Does your friend know that you go around attacking gay people on the internet for being too "woke" (in your royal opinion)?

I wouldn't care one whit about a straight person at Pride. Many if not most people at Pride are straight, at least around here. Nice little families come to gawk at the gays and wear feathers for the day. They're fine. But attacking people? Not cool.

That's my entire point. In your twisted mind, you equate attacking woke with attacking gays. That's a perverse position. It's on par with "have you stopped beating your wife?". It's a grotesque way of discussing and equally fucked up way of seeing the world. With friends like you, gays need no enemies.

My friend, Petter, spends most of his energy attacking other gays, because he thinks the gay movement is overly superficial and has unhealthy body ideals. He thinks they have rampant substance abuse problems kept quiet because we don't want it to make gays look bad. He thinks it's dumb because it leads to gays suffering in silence. The one thing we were supposed to have gotten away from with with gay acceptance. That doesn't make him homophobic, hate gays or that he attacks the gay movement.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The support of woke comes from good intentions. But I think it's evil. Woke is toxic as fuck. Nobody is helped by woke language. Nobody.
 
Last edited:

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
You are attacking the people it took us decades, centuries, an entire course of civilization to forge into allies.

People actually WANT to help us gays now and you are here attempting to make it unfashionable to do so.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are attacking the people it took us decades, centuries, an entire course of civilization to forge into allies.

On what side are you on? Yes, the wokes are attacking and alienating the people it took us decades to forge into allies. Which is my problem with the wokes.

People actually WANT to help us gays now and you are here attempting to make it unfashionable to do so.

I think you have it completely backward.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You are attacking the people it took us decades, centuries, an entire course of civilization to forge into allies.

On what side are you on? Yes, the wokes are attacking and alienating the people it took us decades to forge into allies. Which is my problem with the wokes.

People actually WANT to help us gays now and you are here attempting to make it unfashionable to do so.

I think you have it completely backward.
Is that what Petter, Patron Saint of All Discourse, said?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I'll be frank: I don't care to woo "conservatives".

Those are not the allies I want.

"Conservatives" want to line me up against a wall to be shot, because they conflate being a fetishy perv who understands informed consent with adults* with being a predator who abuses children**.

If they weren't demonizing me, they would demonize someone else to be lined up against a wall and shot until they ran out of "someone else".

To be fair, when they are complaining about us being too ***, it means they are at their most disarmed, that there are not enough folks who support their goals to succeed. This is a better situation than when they have folks not caring about the trans/gays/blacks/Tutsis they know as just normal people of their community.

That starts with seeing that gay and trans people have hopes and dreams and lives and loves and that being weird as such is no harm.

It starts with people seeing trans people being accepted in fiction, because the only place they will see it is in fiction, at least before the fact of real social change.

It's so vitally important that folks see it, and that means putting trans and gay and other such things on a screen, on a page, on an image that people can aspire to, as an example.

That way, we can perhaps even get the country woke against "folks who want to line anyone up against a wall and shoot them, even those who would line folks up against walls and shoot "


*Something I am.
**Something I am not.
***(insert-modern-anti-progtessive-slur-here)
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,267
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
You are attacking the people it took us decades, centuries, an entire course of civilization to forge into allies.

On what side are you on? Yes, the wokes are attacking and alienating the people it took us decades to forge into allies. Which is my problem with the wokes.

People actually WANT to help us gays now and you are here attempting to make it unfashionable to do so.

I think you have it completely backward.
Is that what Petter, Patron Saint of All Discourse, said?

I'll be frank: I don't care to woo "conservatives".

Those are not the allies I want.

Then enjoy being bitter and dying alone. Nobody with their shit together wants to be around bitter people. Life's too short for that shit.

Change can only come from mutual respect.

"Conservatives" want to line me up against a wall to be shot, because they conflate being a fetishy perv who understands informed consent with adults* with being a predator who abuses children**.

If they weren't demonizing me, they would demonize someone else to be lined up against a wall and shot until they ran out of "someone else".

You've accurately demonstrated how conservative demonization of gays is stupid. Yet, you fail to turn the same lens on yourself to see how your demonization of conservatives is equally stupid. Of course most conservatives don't want to line you up against the wall and shoot you. That's ridiculous. Stops spreading rediculous propaganda. The fact that a conservative has been caught on camera saying it, doesn't mean they're representative for the group. Most people are nice people with decent values. Yes, even conservatives. If you can't see that, your anger has made you blind.



To be fair, when they are complaining about us being too ***, it means they are at their most disarmed, that there are not enough folks who support their goals to succeed. This is a better situation than when they have folks not caring about the trans/gays/blacks/Tutsis they know as just normal people of their community.

That starts with seeing that gay and trans people have hopes and dreams and lives and loves and that being weird as such is no harm.

It starts with people seeing trans people being accepted in fiction, because the only place they will see it is in fiction, at least before the fact of real social change.

It's so vitally important that folks see it, and that means putting trans and gay and other such things on a screen, on a page, on an image that people can aspire to, as an example.

That way, we can perhaps even get the country woke against "folks who want to line anyone up against a wall and shoot them, even those who would line folks up against walls and shoot "


*Something I am.
**Something I am not.
***(insert-modern-anti-progtessive-slur-here)

We have the same goals. Where we differ is the means to get there. To create tolerance I think we need to be tolerant. If we're not, we're fucked. If we want to not be demonized we need to stop demonizing.

I personally see the fight for gay rights and the rights of minorities as the fight for my freedoms. It's something I'm passionate about. I suspect we're the same there. I just think woke rhetoric is a step backward.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,423
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
You are attacking the people it took us decades, centuries, an entire course of civilization to forge into allies.

On what side are you on? Yes, the wokes are attacking and alienating the people it took us decades to forge into allies. Which is my problem with the wokes.

People actually WANT to help us gays now and you are here attempting to make it unfashionable to do so.

I think you have it completely backward.
Is that what Petter, Patron Saint of All Discourse, said?

I'll be frank: I don't care to woo "conservatives".

Those are not the allies I want.
Then enjoy being bitter and dying alone. Nobody with their shit together wants to be around bitter people. Life's too short for that shit.

Change can only come from mutual respect.
PM Chamberlain agrees with you. It amazes me how certain you are about something you are so thoroughly unfamiliar with, ie American social justice issues.
"Conservatives" want to line me up against a wall to be shot, because they conflate being a fetishy perv who understands informed consent with adults* with being a predator who abuses children**.

If they weren't demonizing me, they would demonize someone else to be lined up against a wall and shot until they ran out of "someone else".
You've accurately demonstrated how conservative demonization of gays is stupid.
Stupid? You mean dangerous, right? SCOTUS Justice Thomas wants to recriminalize consensual gay sex.
Yet, you fail to turn the same lens on yourself to see how your demonization of conservatives is equally stupid. Of course most conservatives don't want to line you up against the wall and shoot you. That's ridiculous.
It is ridiculous, the State of Texas merely arrested and charged two guys who were at their place for having gay sex... in 1998. Sure, no one was shot. Just arrested, charged with a ridiculous crime.
The fact that a conservative has been caught on camera saying it, doesn't mean they're representative for the group. Most people are nice people with decent values.
Then why were gay men charged with having sex in the late 90s? Texas fought this all the way to the Supreme Court. I didn't see conservatives saying the law was outdated. In fact Justice Scalia warned of all sorts of craziness if the majority of the court ruled in favor of the gay men.

All these decent valued people are silenced as long as their rights aren't at risk. They continue to vote for people who favor justices who oppose these rights.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,641
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
I think it's important to take a step back and look at things. In this case of the op post and responses regarding woke-ism and anti-wokes, it is crucial to not only try to define what is being discussed but also to take a step back to look at the cultural movements making the labels so we can understand in a detached way how it is that we are affected by trends, movements, and other factors.

For efficiency's sake, refer to Wikipedia:
Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing have arisen to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine reform. By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context.[1][2]

One ought to note that the critical parts of this history of the terminology is that (a) wokeness is generally a label assigned by third parties, i.e. people do not generally run around saying, "I am woke" and (b) the essence of wokeness is awareness of racism, sexism, and other discriminatory features of society.

The essence is good. It is good to fight racism, sexism, discrimination against gays and others.

What is notable is the subjective treatment of the label and how movements and ideological groups use anecdotes and changing cultural memes that reveal bigger, repeated features of society.

Throughout American history, there have been progressive movements and these may become popularized and then following that there is extremist backlash, i.e. conservative reactionaries who create narratives involving conspiracies or even true anecdotes. Then, later on comes a middle centrism that compromises, perhaps in order to maintain positions of institutional or cultural power and the middle uses the memes in nearly the same way as the conservative reactionaries.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think it's important to take a step back and look at things. In this case of the op post and responses regarding woke-ism and anti-wokes, it is crucial to not only try to define what is being discussed but also to take a step back to look at the cultural movements making the labels so we can understand in a detached way how it is that we are affected by trends, movements, and other factors.

For efficiency's sake, refer to Wikipedia:
Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

The terms woke capitalism and woke-washing have arisen to describe companies who signal support for progressive causes as a substitute for genuine reform. By 2020, parts of the political center and right wing in several Western countries were using the term woke, often in an ironic way, as an insult for various progressive or leftist movements and ideologies perceived as overzealous, performative, or insincere. In turn, some commentators came to consider it an offensive term with negative associations to those who promote political ideas involving identity and race. By 2021, woke had become used almost exclusively as a pejorative, with most prominent usages of the word taking place in a disparaging context.[1][2]

One ought to note that the critical parts of this history of the terminology is that (a) wokeness is generally a label assigned by third parties, i.e. people do not generally run around saying, "I am woke" and (b) the essence of wokeness is awareness of racism, sexism, and other discriminatory features of society.

The essence is good. It is good to fight racism, sexism, discrimination against gays and others.

What is notable is the subjective treatment of the label and how movements and ideological groups use anecdotes and changing cultural memes that reveal bigger, repeated features of society.

Throughout American history, there have been progressive movements and these may become popularized and then following that there is extremist backlash, i.e. conservative reactionaries who create narratives involving conspiracies or even true anecdotes. Then, later on comes a middle centrism that compromises, perhaps in order to maintain positions of institutional or cultural power and the middle uses the memes in nearly the same way as the conservative reactionaries.
You dropped the " " around the "middle" and "centrism".

It's capitulation to extremist reactionaries!
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,957
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
We have the same goals. Where we differ is the means to get there. To create tolerance I think we need to be tolerant.
We ought NEVER tolerate those who would line folks up against the wall to be shot. I clearly don't believe in lining them up against walls but there is no need to tolerate it either.

I would isolate, educate, and otherwise monitor those who would do so in a safe environment.

But we absolutely have no reason to tolerate those who would line us up against a wall.

Because that's how you end up lined against a wall.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,443
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Dr Z doesn't want all the gays lined up against the wall, right? He doesn't even want the "bad" ones lined up against the wall.

(But it's their own fault if they wind up there.)
 
Top Bottom