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

Leaving woke culture and God

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
You got to try harder than that. You've just exaggerated my statement to it's most extreme to the point where it's silly. I did volunteer in a homeless shelter for a while. I did not break a nail doing it. Why did I do it? Because it was incredibly rewarding. I got a lot of out of it. I'm not sure I saved any lives. But I certainly helped quite a few of them out of some pretty horrific circumstances, like helping an illegal homeless immigrant acquire the AIDS medication she needed. But it cost me absolutely nothing. Not only did it cost me nothing, but it was pure benefit to me. It made me feel great about myself. Why did it stop? I'd done it already for a while. It got repetitive and a bit boring.

People can get benefits from doing things for others. What I don't think is that anybody would voluntarily sacrifice anything if there's nothing in it for them, emotionally.

Not sure if your making an "is altruism real" argument here or something else.

Heather McGee, author of "Sum of Us" cites an example I want to raise here. In a nutshell, When segregation was abolished in the 50's, townships drained their public swimming pools instead of integrating. So no one swam. You can apply this to health care, better social safety nets, etc...

So yes, your argument is true for those you criticize as "woke" - they want a better society for themselves by improving it for everyone.

What many see as "virtue signaling", is more often than not someone attempting to speak out on behalf of a better society.

If you want a better society by improving it for everyone you are improving it for yourself. So you are not sacrificing anything, which defeats your original argument. What you challenged was my statement that nobody will give up privileges if they risk losing something they care about having.

We live in a world of abundance. It wasn't long ago when we didn't. It has changed our behaviour. The cost of generosity has never been lower. But it still has a cost.

We now laugh at the silly township people draining the swimming pools. But I'd argue what sets them apart from the current woke is just the level of fear. The woke don't fear they risk losing anything by their talk. That's why they do it. We've developed intricate social games to keep poor people out. To allow us to say anti racist say but secure in the knowledge we're not likely to meet many.

My experiences is that today the left is a lot more racist than the right. The difference is that racist conservatives are honest about it. While the left is riddled with The racism of low expectations". They often treat anyone of colour as cultural tokens. Rather than real people.

But then again my experiences are from Sweden and Denmark. So hardly universal.

So if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that all white people are racist? That it manifests in different ways depending on your political alliance? Is that it?

Also -the swimming pool story is an analogy for Health Care, eliminating student debt, etc...
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If you want a better society by improving it for everyone you are improving it for yourself. So you are not sacrificing anything, which defeats your original argument. What you challenged was my statement that nobody will give up privileges if they risk losing something they care about having.

We live in a world of abundance. It wasn't long ago when we didn't. It has changed our behaviour. The cost of generosity has never been lower. But it still has a cost.

We now laugh at the silly township people draining the swimming pools. But I'd argue what sets them apart from the current woke is just the level of fear. The woke don't fear they risk losing anything by their talk. That's why they do it. We've developed intricate social games to keep poor people out. To allow us to say anti racist say but secure in the knowledge we're not likely to meet many.

My experiences is that today the left is a lot more racist than the right. The difference is that racist conservatives are honest about it. While the left is riddled with The racism of low expectations". They often treat anyone of colour as cultural tokens. Rather than real people.

But then again my experiences are from Sweden and Denmark. So hardly universal.

So if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that all white people are racist? That it manifests in different ways depending on your political alliance? Is that it?

Also -the swimming pool story is an analogy for Health Care, eliminating student debt, etc...

If I'm to understand you here, you will have to walk me through the logic. How am I implying that all white people are racist?

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about
 

fromderinside

Mazzie Daius
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
15,531
Location
Local group: Solar system: Earth: NA: US: contiguo
Basic Beliefs
optimist
If you want a better society by improving it for everyone you are improving it for yourself. So you are not sacrificing anything, which defeats your original argument. What you challenged was my statement that nobody will give up privileges if they risk losing something they care about having.

We live in a world of abundance. It wasn't long ago when we didn't. It has changed our behaviour. The cost of generosity has never been lower. But it still has a cost.

We now laugh at the silly township people draining the swimming pools. But I'd argue what sets them apart from the current woke is just the level of fear. The woke don't fear they risk losing anything by their talk. That's why they do it. We've developed intricate social games to keep poor people out. To allow us to say anti racist say but secure in the knowledge we're not likely to meet many.

My experiences is that today the left is a lot more racist than the right. The difference is that racist conservatives are honest about it. While the left is riddled with The racism of low expectations". They often treat anyone of colour as cultural tokens. Rather than real people.

But then again my experiences are from Sweden and Denmark. So hardly universal.

So if I understand you correctly, you are asserting that all white people are racist? That it manifests in different ways depending on your political alliance? Is that it?

Also -the swimming pool story is an analogy for Health Care, eliminating student debt, etc...

If I'm to understand you here, you will have to walk me through the logic. How am I implying that all white people are racist?

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about

We acknowledge cost. It's just that the right deaminize our claims. We insist on justifying why we believe cost are well spent. The "well spent" part is what we are dishonest about. Deep down we know corruption arises in government programs based on the very needs that the drive, greed, a primary human tendency that motivates the right, is actually an important driver of human behavior.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If I'm to understand you here, you will have to walk me through the logic. How am I implying that all white people are racist?

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about

We acknowledge cost. It's just that the right deaminize our claims. We insist on justifying why we believe cost are well spent. The "well spent" part is what we are dishonest about. Deep down we know corruption arises in government programs based on the very needs that the drive, greed, a primary human tendency that motivates the right, is actually an important driver of human behavior.

Do we really? There's a lot on the left with their heads in the clouds.
 

repoman

Contributor
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
8,282
Location
Seattle, WA
Basic Beliefs
Science Based Atheism
This is hilarious, but also sad the levels of white guilt...

The title and thumbnail have nothing to do with the topic.

 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
If I'm to understand you here, you will have to walk me through the logic. How am I implying that all white people are racist?

You stated that people on the right are racist, and so are people on the left. I guess that doesn't apply to ALL people but 99% of political discourse is from these 2 sides

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about

That's not what the analogy means. It means that everybody loses if we are unwilling to progress, not just racial minorities.

There are benefits to society as a whole if we can lower the financial burden (eliminating student debt) of young people entering the work force, from higher birth rates, to buying houses, putting money back into the economy, starting small businesses (which create more jobs), and more... This is what economists say, the cost is a net positive.

However, if you go to a Twitter thread debating erasing student debt, the number one argument against it you will hear is "I had to pay my debt, so why shouldn't everyone else?" or "I've paid my debt, now I have to pay everyone else's?" - This is the swimming pool analogy.

So what's going on here? We know from studies that people tend to sort themselves into groups (or identities) naturally without any provocation. (The left didn't invent identity, or identity politics). We also know that people are willing to help those of similar identity, and will disadvantage those who are outside their identity, Sometimes even at a cost to themselves (the swimming pool example).

The thought of helping those outside of their identity is a deal killer. The ploy of modern (alt) right wing politics is to highlight divisions, create fear between them, and then cut social programs that help the victims of their racist society.

But again, the answer isn't to homogenize culture. We are going to belong to different identity groups no matter what we do. That is reality. It's not racist to acknowledge that as you state. It's fascist to try and change that. The solution is to create a culture where people's differences are celebrated, and build an inclusive society where we can implement progressive programs that benefit society as a whole, and in turn provide net benefit for everyone.

I want to emphasize that different Identities within a society is inevitable, and makes for a more robust dynamic culture. It is a strength. The right uses it against society to achieve its goals of lowering taxes on the wealthy, and to maintain a social hierarchy where their identity group remains at the top. (John Birch society)

When you say "everything comes at a cost" - be aware that there are policies that are a net positive. Enabling society as a whole is a positive. Burdening groups within our society is a net negative and has known costs.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If I'm to understand you here, you will have to walk me through the logic. How am I implying that all white people are racist?

You stated that people on the right are racist, and so are people on the left. I guess that doesn't apply to ALL people but 99% of political discourse is from these 2 sides

I don't think that I did. But you give an excellent example of how we tend to only focus on the worst aspects of the people on the other side.

The left have a hard time reconciling the idea that a conservatist is against immigration, while also NOT being a racist. Yes, those people exist and I think are the majority of those against immigration. We really should be better at not projecting bullshit on eachother. Just my two cents.

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about

That's not what the analogy means. It means that everybody loses if we are unwilling to progress, not just racial minorities.

There are benefits to society as a whole if we can lower the financial burden (eliminating student debt) of young people entering the work force, from higher birth rates, to buying houses, putting money back into the economy, starting small businesses (which create more jobs), and more... This is what economists say, the cost is a net positive.

However, if you go to a Twitter thread debating erasing student debt, the number one argument against it you will hear is "I had to pay my debt, so why shouldn't everyone else?" or "I've paid my debt, now I have to pay everyone else's?" - This is the swimming pool analogy.

So what's going on here? We know from studies that people tend to sort themselves into groups (or identities) naturally without any provocation. (The left didn't invent identity, or identity politics). We also know that people are willing to help those of similar identity, and will disadvantage those who are outside their identity, Sometimes even at a cost to themselves (the swimming pool example).

The thought of helping those outside of their identity is a deal killer. The ploy of modern (alt) right wing politics is to highlight divisions, create fear between them, and then cut social programs that help the victims of their racist society.

But again, the answer isn't to homogenize culture. We are going to belong to different identity groups no matter what we do. That is reality. It's not racist to acknowledge that as you state. It's fascist to try and change that. The solution is to create a culture where people's differences are celebrated, and build an inclusive society where we can implement progressive programs that benefit society as a whole, and in turn provide net benefit for everyone.

I want to emphasize that different Identities within a society is inevitable, and makes for a more robust dynamic culture. It is a strength. The right uses it against society to achieve its goals of lowering taxes on the wealthy, and to maintain a social hierarchy where their identity group remains at the top. (John Birch society)

When you say "everything comes at a cost" - be aware that there are policies that are a net positive. Enabling society as a whole is a positive. Burdening groups within our society is a net negative and has known costs.


In India students get zero help from the government and tend to pick fields of study which will lead to a well paying job. This is why India has so many female engineers, compared to the west. They have few frivolous students.

In Sweden higher education isn't only free, but you get a salary for studying. So a lot of people go to university just to be able to be lazy or score chicks. I did this when I lived there. Which is why my first degree was in philosophy and logic. Good to have studied, but from a macro economic perspective, absolute bullshit and a waste of money. Sweden has plenty of people who have been in school most of their adult life. Usually they already have a job, but do the studies on the side for fun.

I'm for the Swedish system, I think it is good. But I also understand that it has a cost. The incentives aren't encouraging people to study things that will lead to generating money. Which would be nice if the state is paying.

I understand if conservatives don't like supporting people through school when the incentives will change.

Americans are more focused on making money than Swedes. Because we have a socialist system. Incentives matter. Conservatives aren't immoral monsters for valuing money in this case. I don't think so. I think both sides have excellent arguments.

I'm from Sweden BTW. I just live in Denmark now. But Denmark has the same system. Works the same way.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd

He also separates people into groups then stereotypes them. The only difference between his worldview and the worldview of those he sees as evil is which group is identified as "evil" and which is "good". There is no place in such a worldview for the worldview that individuals are valuable and should be judged individually for their individual actions. I tend to see individuals as valuable not arbitrary groupings.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd

He also separates people into groups then stereotypes them. The only difference between his worldview and the worldview of those he sees as evil is which group is identified as "evil" and which is "good". There is no place in such a worldview for the worldview that individuals are valuable and should be judged individually for their individual actions. I tend to see individuals as valuable not arbitrary groupings.

Its guilt by association. If you like something that also Hitler liked, then you are just like Hitler
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
I don't think that I did. But you give an excellent example of how we tend to only focus on the worst aspects of the people on the other side.

The left have a hard time reconciling the idea that a conservatist is against immigration, while also NOT being a racist. Yes, those people exist and I think are the majority of those against immigration. We really should be better at not projecting bullshit on eachother. Just my two cents.

I understand the analogy. But my argument still stands. It's about fear and the fear of what you might lose if you support the elimination of student debt.

Everything has a cost. Which is something we on the left tend to be bad at being honest about

That's not what the analogy means. It means that everybody loses if we are unwilling to progress, not just racial minorities.





There are benefits to society as a whole if we can lower the financial burden (eliminating student debt) of young people entering the work force, from higher birth rates, to buying houses, putting money back into the economy, starting small businesses (which create more jobs), and more... This is what economists say, the cost is a net positive.

However, if you go to a Twitter thread debating erasing student debt, the number one argument against it you will hear is "I had to pay my debt, so why shouldn't everyone else?" or "I've paid my debt, now I have to pay everyone else's?" - This is the swimming pool analogy.

So what's going on here? We know from studies that people tend to sort themselves into groups (or identities) naturally without any provocation. (The left didn't invent identity, or identity politics). We also know that people are willing to help those of similar identity, and will disadvantage those who are outside their identity, Sometimes even at a cost to themselves (the swimming pool example).

The thought of helping those outside of their identity is a deal killer. The ploy of modern (alt) right wing politics is to highlight divisions, create fear between them, and then cut social programs that help the victims of their racist society.

But again, the answer isn't to homogenize culture. We are going to belong to different identity groups no matter what we do. That is reality. It's not racist to acknowledge that as you state. It's fascist to try and change that. The solution is to create a culture where people's differences are celebrated, and build an inclusive society where we can implement progressive programs that benefit society as a whole, and in turn provide net benefit for everyone.

I want to emphasize that different Identities within a society is inevitable, and makes for a more robust dynamic culture. It is a strength. The right uses it against society to achieve its goals of lowering taxes on the wealthy, and to maintain a social hierarchy where their identity group remains at the top. (John Birch society)

When you say "everything comes at a cost" - be aware that there are policies that are a net positive. Enabling society as a whole is a positive. Burdening groups within our society is a net negative and has known costs.


In India students get zero help from the government and tend to pick fields of study which will lead to a well paying job. This is why India has so many female engineers, compared to the west. They have few frivolous students.

In Sweden higher education isn't only free, but you get a salary for studying. So a lot of people go to university just to be able to be lazy or score chicks. I did this when I lived there. Which is why my first degree was in philosophy and logic. Good to have studied, but from a macro economic perspective, absolute bullshit and a waste of money. Sweden has plenty of people who have been in school most of their adult life. Usually they already have a job, but do the studies on the side for fun.

I'm for the Swedish system, I think it is good. But I also understand that it has a cost. The incentives aren't encouraging people to study things that will lead to generating money. Which would be nice if the state is paying.

I understand if conservatives don't like supporting people through school when the incentives will change.

Americans are more focused on making money than Swedes. Because we have a socialist system. Incentives matter. Conservatives aren't immoral monsters for valuing money in this case. I don't think so. I think both sides have excellent arguments.

I'm from Sweden BTW. I just live in Denmark now. But Denmark has the same system. Works the same way.

India has some of the most reasonable tuition fees in the world. They don't yoke people with debt. Besides, that's just a small example of my larger point - but it adds to the case about the benefits of the advantages of reduced debt.

I don't think making money is immoral, My view is I don't think the free market solves all problems. It's great for power tools, hats, toilet paper, lawn furniture, but not for health care, education, corrections,etc..
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd

He also separates people into groups then stereotypes them. The only difference between his worldview and the worldview of those he sees as evil is which group is identified as "evil" and which is "good". There is no place in such a worldview for the worldview that individuals are valuable and should be judged individually for their individual actions. I tend to see individuals as valuable not arbitrary groupings.

Hey Skepticalblip, do you belong to any groups? Are you a worker? A parent? A brother? Any group at all?
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd

He also separates people into groups then stereotypes them. The only difference between his worldview and the worldview of those he sees as evil is which group is identified as "evil" and which is "good". There is no place in such a worldview for the worldview that individuals are valuable and should be judged individually for their individual actions. I tend to see individuals as valuable not arbitrary groupings.

Its guilt by association. If you like something that also Hitler liked, then you are just like Hitler

So your solution is we should eradicate difference among us? Is that your final solution?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not. Alt right are neo-fascist. Lots of conservatists are the same kind of conservatives that fought against Hitler.

Conflating these is absurd

He also separates people into groups then stereotypes them. The only difference between his worldview and the worldview of those he sees as evil is which group is identified as "evil" and which is "good". There is no place in such a worldview for the worldview that individuals are valuable and should be judged individually for their individual actions. I tend to see individuals as valuable not arbitrary groupings.

Its guilt by association. If you like something that also Hitler liked, then you are just like Hitler

Only the association is by group. Louis Farrakhan praises Hitler as a great man but he is in a favored group so 'good' and his praise of Hitler is ignored by the woke. Someone who the woke has included in what they identify as a 'good' group can do no wrong - someone identified by the woke as being in an 'evil' group can do no good.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
Its guilt by association. If you like something that also Hitler liked, then you are just like Hitler

Only the association is by group. Louis Farrakhan praises Hitler as a great man but he is in a favored group so 'good' and his praise of Hitler is ignored by the woke. Someone who the woke has included in what they identify as a 'good' group can do no wrong - someone identified by the woke as being in an 'evil' group can do no good.

This is not it at all. Firstly - the differences are cultural, not genetic. As I've stated:

individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.

from this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Hitler didn't recognize rights of all groups of people. He didn't invent identity either BTW. There were Jews, LGTBQ, Russians, etc.. before he existed.

He recognized identity groups to be sure, it's what he did about it is the issue. North America is a multicultural experiment. Conservatives don't want it to be.

As I said - this philosophy is modern (alt) right wing conservatism. Not classic conservatism (they exist too)
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I don't think that I did. But you give an excellent example of how we tend to only focus on the worst aspects of the people on the other side.

The left have a hard time reconciling the idea that a conservatist is against immigration, while also NOT being a racist. Yes, those people exist and I think are the majority of those against immigration. We really should be better at not projecting bullshit on eachother. Just my two cents.




In India students get zero help from the government and tend to pick fields of study which will lead to a well paying job. This is why India has so many female engineers, compared to the west. They have few frivolous students.

In Sweden higher education isn't only free, but you get a salary for studying. So a lot of people go to university just to be able to be lazy or score chicks. I did this when I lived there. Which is why my first degree was in philosophy and logic. Good to have studied, but from a macro economic perspective, absolute bullshit and a waste of money. Sweden has plenty of people who have been in school most of their adult life. Usually they already have a job, but do the studies on the side for fun.

I'm for the Swedish system, I think it is good. But I also understand that it has a cost. The incentives aren't encouraging people to study things that will lead to generating money. Which would be nice if the state is paying.

I understand if conservatives don't like supporting people through school when the incentives will change.

Americans are more focused on making money than Swedes. Because we have a socialist system. Incentives matter. Conservatives aren't immoral monsters for valuing money in this case. I don't think so. I think both sides have excellent arguments.

I'm from Sweden BTW. I just live in Denmark now. But Denmark has the same system. Works the same way.

India has some of the most reasonable tuition fees in the world. They don't yoke people with debt. Besides, that's just a small example of my larger point - but it adds to the case about the benefits of the advantages of reduced debt.

I don't think making money is immoral, My view is I don't think the free market solves all problems. It's great for power tools, hats, toilet paper, lawn furniture, but not for health care, education, corrections,etc..

I think you are straw manning. I think you have created a caricature of the right which you are arguing against. I somehow doubt they think the free market solves all problems. I think they're well aware of the problems. They just think that taking all things into consideration its still worth it. That's a completely different argument than that which you are making.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,098
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.

from this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/
Did you read the article, or just the abstract? The full article makes it clear that the authors are using the phrase "genetically more similar" in a peculiar idiosyncratic sense* that's quite different from what the phrase means in plain English. Moreover, the article also says:

It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.

Translating the latter sentence into plain English:

Individuals from different populations aren't ever genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.​

(* Specifically, they're using "genetically more similar" in a sense that's relativised to a specific set of DNA markers. So one and the same person can be "genetically more similar" to you than he is to me relative to marker set A, at the same time that he's "genetically more similar" to me than he is to you relative to marker set B. This is not what normal English speakers would understand "genetically more similar" to mean. If we say it without qualifiers, we'd mean "genetically more similar" across the entire genome.)
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
I think they're well aware of the problems. They just think that taking all things into consideration its still worth it. That's a completely different argument than that which you are making.

I don't think they go deep enough into the issues. Usually, it never gets beyond "Spending money is bad" - it's never seen as an investment. Immigration rarely gets deeper than "These people will take things from me", Health Care doesn't get beyond, "Why should I help that person?", Women's health rights never go further than "It's God's will"

Not to say the left doesn't follow party lines on issues, I just see more in-depth discussion of issues, root causes, and solutions, coming from the Left.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
This is not it at all. Firstly - the differences are cultural, not genetic. As I've stated:

individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.

from this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Hitler didn't recognize rights of all groups of people. He didn't invent identity either BTW. There were Jews, LGTBQ, Russians, etc.. before he existed.

He recognized identity groups to be sure, it's what he did about it is the issue. North America is a multicultural experiment. Conservatives don't want it to be.
No... North America was an experiment of a melting pot where newly arriving peoples of differing cultures were incorporated into and influenced the whole making an 'American culture'. What you are talking is cultural separation like in the Balkans which caused continued strife between differing cultural groups.

I would still like you to explain why no one from the woke culture has criticized Farrakhan who praises Hitler while the woke culture holds Hitler up as the ultimate evil. While I agree that Hitler was 'evil', I don't see it that way because he was a white European but because he personally was an ass-wipe like Papa Doc Duvalier or Pol Pot.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
This is not it at all. Firstly - the differences are cultural, not genetic. As I've stated:

individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population.

from this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Hitler didn't recognize rights of all groups of people. He didn't invent identity either BTW. There were Jews, LGTBQ, Russians, etc.. before he existed.

He recognized identity groups to be sure, it's what he did about it is the issue. North America is a multicultural experiment. Conservatives don't want it to be.
No... North America was an experiment of a melting pot where newly arriving peoples of differing cultures were incorporated into and influenced the whole making an 'American culture'. What you are talking is cultural separation like in the Balkans which caused continued strife between differing cultural groups.

I think many on the right see the idea of a monoculture (as long as it's the one they know) as the ideal.

I would still like you to explain why no one from the woke culture has criticized Farrakhan who praises Hitler while the woke culture holds Hitler up as the ultimate evil.

I don't see anyone praising Farrakhan. Are you looking for a written statement from the head of the Left?
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
No... North America was an experiment of a melting pot where newly arriving peoples of differing cultures were incorporated into and influenced the whole making an 'American culture'. What you are talking is cultural separation like in the Balkans which caused continued strife between differing cultural groups.

I think many on the right see the idea of a monoculture (as long as it's the one they know) as the ideal.

I would still like you to explain why no one from the woke culture has criticized Farrakhan who praises Hitler while the woke culture holds Hitler up as the ultimate evil.

I don't see anyone praising Farrakhan. Are you looking for a written statement from the head of the Left?
I didn't expect praise. What I would expect is for someone, anyone, woke to criticize him like they would and do anyone not in what they identify as the 'good' group who would praise Hitler. You didn't answer why no one has.

Maybe you could be the first to condemn him like you do your strawman version of those you decided are your enemy. Be a trailblazer... but then it may get you canceled, so maybe you shouldn't.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
I think many on the right see the idea of a monoculture (as long as it's the one they know) as the ideal.



I don't see anyone praising Farrakhan. Are you looking for a written statement from the head of the Left?
I didn't expect praise. What I would expect is for someone, anyone, woke to criticize him like they would and do anyone not in what they identify as the 'good' group who would praise Hitler. You didn't answer why no one has.

Maybe you could be the first to condemn him like you do your strawman version of those you decided are your enemy. Be a trailblazer... but then it may get you canceled, so maybe you shouldn't.

Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
 

skepticalbip

Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2004
Messages
6,978
Location
Searching for reality along the long and winding r
Basic Beliefs
Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I think many on the right see the idea of a monoculture (as long as it's the one they know) as the ideal.



I don't see anyone praising Farrakhan. Are you looking for a written statement from the head of the Left?
I didn't expect praise. What I would expect is for someone, anyone, woke to criticize him like they would and do anyone not in what they identify as the 'good' group who would praise Hitler. You didn't answer why no one has.

Maybe you could be the first to condemn him like you do your strawman version of those you decided are your enemy. Be a trailblazer... but then it may get you canceled, so maybe you shouldn't.

Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.
 

JohnG

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
501
Location
Western Canada
Basic Beliefs
Non- theist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.

If I'm going to base my opinion on Farrakhan on the information you just gave me in your post, then yes he's a bad man. Is your information accurate?

I believe I have read he called Hitler a great man, not sure why, but I can't get behind that statement on any level. As a jew, I am culturally biased against Hitler. There may be things that he did in his life that were positive, maybe he donated to an orphanage, IDK, but I don't think there is any benefit in elevating Hitler for any reason.

This is a weird derail.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.

If I'm going to base my opinion on Farrakhan on the information you just gave me in your post, then yes he's a bad man. Is your information accurate?

I believe I have read he called Hitler a great man, not sure why, but I can't get behind that statement on any level. As a jew, I am culturally biased against Hitler. There may be things that he did in his life that were positive, maybe he donated to an orphanage, IDK, but I don't think there is any benefit in elevating Hitler for any reason.

This is a weird derail.

It gets worse. Nation of Islam has merged with the Church of Scientology. Iron Sky has become reality. Space Nazis!
 

Mumbles

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
1,585
Location
Maryland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.

Well, the real problem is that the "right", by and large, does not denounce him, despite the fact that he's obviously deeply conservative himself (staunchly capitalist, believes men should head households, deeply anti-LGBT [to the point of claiming that the Jews are behind the existence of black gay men), strongly distrustful of government interference [mostly because he sees it as controlled by white people...which, I mean...], strongly religious [granted, a goofball black nationalist religion, but still]), but rather use him as a bludgeon against black Americans.

Meanwhile, the generation of people who used to use the word "woke" to mean aware of anti-black racism are generally unconcerned with him, and many believe that he died years ago.

It's not much, but he is a useful example to show the complete misunderstanding that white conservatives and centrists have over the very meaning of the term woke", who used it before it became a sneer term for republicans to scare and rally voters, and so forth.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.

Well, the real problem is that the "right", by and large, does not denounce him, despite the fact that he's obviously deeply conservative himself (staunchly capitalist, believes men should head households, deeply anti-LGBT [to the point of claiming that the Jews are behind the existence of black gay men), strongly distrustful of government interference [mostly because he sees it as controlled by white people...which, I mean...], strongly religious [granted, a goofball black nationalist religion, but still]), but rather use him as a bludgeon against black Americans.

Meanwhile, the generation of people who used to use the word "woke" to mean aware of anti-black racism are generally unconcerned with him, and many believe that he died years ago.

It's not much, but he is a useful example to show the complete misunderstanding that white conservatives and centrists have over the very meaning of the term woke", who used it before it became a sneer term for republicans to scare and rally voters, and so forth.

I think Conservatives usually like belligerent minorities. Because it allows them to point to them and say "look, right here, this is what I'm talking about. I'm not paranoid". Conservatives, by and large, always see ethnic conflicts, no matter if they are there or not. Anything that validates it is embraced, even if they, on paper, are sworn enemies.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
6,134
Location
Houston, Texas
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
I think many on the right see the idea of a monoculture (as long as it's the one they know) as the ideal.



I don't see anyone praising Farrakhan. Are you looking for a written statement from the head of the Left?
I didn't expect praise. What I would expect is for someone, anyone, woke to criticize him like they would and do anyone not in what they identify as the 'good' group who would praise Hitler. You didn't answer why no one has.

Maybe you could be the first to condemn him like you do your strawman version of those you decided are your enemy. Be a trailblazer... but then it may get you canceled, so maybe you shouldn't.

Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.

Google Farrakhan, anti-Semitism for particulars.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/nation-of-islam-farrakhan-in-his-own-words

Farrakhan is an idiot who peddles hate. Rank anti-semitism
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.

Google Farrakhan, anti-Semitism for particulars.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/nation-of-islam-farrakhan-in-his-own-words

Farrakhan is an idiot who peddles hate. Rank anti-semitism

He's just a run-of-the-mill fascist. The only reason anybody takes him seriously in polite society is because he's black. It's racism of low expectations.

The fact that he's not vocally condemned by the left on par with Trump or Hitler is because the woke left is racist as fuck. They can't deal with black people who refuse being victims and who don't want their sympathy and help.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.
Farrakhan praised Hitler because of the attempt to eradicate the Jews. Surely you don't have enough self-loathing to not condemn Farrakhan for preaching such shit. But then the right condemns him for it and maybe you just can't bring yourself to agree with anything the right says.

Well, the real problem is that the "right", by and large, does not denounce him, despite the fact that he's obviously deeply conservative himself (staunchly capitalist, believes men should head households, deeply anti-LGBT [to the point of claiming that the Jews are behind the existence of black gay men), strongly distrustful of government interference [mostly because he sees it as controlled by white people...which, I mean...], strongly religious [granted, a goofball black nationalist religion, but still]), but rather use him as a bludgeon against black Americans.

Meanwhile, the generation of people who used to use the word "woke" to mean aware of anti-black racism are generally unconcerned with him, and many believe that he died years ago.

It's not much, but he is a useful example to show the complete misunderstanding that white conservatives and centrists have over the very meaning of the term woke", who used it before it became a sneer term for republicans to scare and rally voters, and so forth.

Why would the right condemn anybody on their side?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,646
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.

Google Farrakhan, anti-Semitism for particulars.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/nation-of-islam-farrakhan-in-his-own-words

Farrakhan is an idiot who peddles hate. Rank anti-semitism
The phrase "blood sucking Jew", I believe has been uttered by him. I think 9/11 shut him up for a while. Is he making a comeback?
 

Mumbles

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
1,585
Location
Maryland
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Haha! Who's going to cancel me? The mob? Oh No!

but seriously....I don't know alot about Farrakhan but I know he was a polarizing figure. I am a Jew and I know he spoke against Israel. I have myself. Bibi is a dik.

Google Farrakhan, anti-Semitism for particulars.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/nation-of-islam-farrakhan-in-his-own-words

Farrakhan is an idiot who peddles hate. Rank anti-semitism

He's just a run-of-the-mill fascist. The only reason anybody takes him seriously in polite society is because he's black. It's racism of low expectations.

The fact that he's not vocally condemned by the left on par with Trump or Hitler is because the woke left is racist as fuck. They can't deal with black people who refuse being victims and who don't want their sympathy and help.

well, no, the main people who "take him seriously" are people in their 40s and up who recall him as either

1) the bigot who nevertheless reformed criminals and whose organization provided the best substitute for "law enforcement" back when the function of actual police with respect to black people was to oppress them violently, or

2) the bigot who nevertheless was the only national leader willing to deal with younger black men in the 90s as much more than a menace - his willingness to work out truces between potentially violent groups, and of course his Million Man March, which was themed entirely about black men pledging to work on self-improvement, commitment to family, and the like.

The "woke", ie. younger black people, don't condemn him because they rarely bother to think about him at all. He's simply not an important figure to them, while, say, Toupee Fiasco was the head of the executive branch of the US government, and used his authority at every possible place to attack nonwhite people, whether individually (see. having Colin Kaepernick blackballed), institutionally (see. blocking attempts at police reform, or rhetorically (openly advocating racial violence and segregation).

In contrast, Farrakhan's actual religious followers number...possibly 10,000, though likely less than that. In other words, he's a fringe figure at this point.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not.
They voted en masse for Trump in 2020. They proved, in general, they'd rather have a fascist elected than a Democrat.

Did they? They chose (for them) the least bad of two bad options. They correctly gambled on that Trump wouldn't be able to derail American democracy, (although he gave his best shot).

I think you're being a bit harsh against Republicans. The Republicans is also the party the counter culture hippies vote for. So they can't only be pure evil.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,646
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
JohnG, FYI I notice how you conflate everyone on the right as alt right. They're not.
They voted en masse for Trump in 2020. They proved, in general, they'd rather have a fascist elected than a Democrat.

Did they? They chose (for them) the least bad of two bad options. They correctly gambled on that Trump wouldn't be able to derail American democracy, (although he gave his best shot).

I think you're being a bit harsh against Republicans. The Republicans is also the party the counter culture hippies vote for. So they can't only be pure evil.

Yes, they did. Biden was an old school Democrat that is about as moderate as it gets. They picked the fascist over him.
 

ideologyhunter

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
4,800
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
Also, that the preach instinctively reaches for his high holy roller voice on the line, "HE PUTS THE HAND DEEPER!!" Not "DO YOU FEEL JESUS IN YOUR SOUL??!" but "HE PUTS THE HAND DEEPER!!"
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,646
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I am glad that the Ugandans are not woke



I love how they somehow don't react to that their pastor is watching gay scat porn in church. Captain closet!

I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am glad that the Ugandans are not woke



I love how they somehow don't react to that their pastor is watching gay scat porn in church. Captain closet!

I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.


I somehow doubt Africans needed any help being homophobic. It's rarely something people need to be encouraged into.

I think the post-colonial white devil narrative is as tiresome as the white saviour narrative. White people aren't as important as we think we are. Africans are fully capable of fucking up Africa all on their own. Everything bad that happens in Africa isn't the result of white people meddling.

A religion doesn't take root and spread unless there's a receptive audience and culture making mass adoption possible. I know enough Africans to say that Africa has plenty of homegrown attitudes and beliefs that are less than progressive or helpful.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,646
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.

I somehow doubt Africans needed any help being homophobic. It's rarely something people need to be encouraged into.
After the Evangelicals were done with their work in Africa, a number of nations criminalized homosexuality. They were directly involved in that.

I think the post-colonial white devil narrative is as tiresome as the white saviour narrative. White people aren't as important as we think we are.
Only when it actually turns out to be what happened.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jimmy Higgins said:
I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is. Some white evangelicals indoctrinated some people. A few others indoctrinated themselves. And then some of those people continued the indoctrination of others, and so on. For that matter, nearly all white evangelicals were also indoctrinated, by their parents, who were also indoctrinated by their parents, and a long etc. But each of the indoctrinators is of course to blame for their choice to indoctrinate.

Jimmy Higgins said:
After the Evangelicals were done with their work in Africa, a number of nations criminalized homosexuality. They were directly involved in that.
They chose to criminalize homosexuality. They could have chosen otherwise, just as those Evangelicals could have chosen not to indoctrinate despite the fact that most of them were also indoctrinated. And so on.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,646
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Jimmy Higgins said:
I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is.
repoman was mocking blacks for their "inferiority". So the point was, it was a bunch of white people that came up with the idea in the first place.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,172
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
After the Evangelicals were done with their work in Africa, a number of nations criminalized homosexuality. They were directly involved in that.

Because USA as a nation is obsessed with laws and making sure what ever you'll do in life will involve a lawyer. I'll give you that the American Evangelicals most likely influenced this law created. Not that hyper corrupt Africa gives laws much weight.

But the homophobia? Fat chance. Africa has been preposterously homophobic since forever. That's not a new thing. Which is why it's so funny that Mandela managed to crowbar gay rights into the SA constitution. Much to the consternation of the "upright and moral" black population now in power in South Africa. If they mess with the constitution they're attacking SA most sacred idol. What to do? What to do?
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
Jimmy Higgins said:
I think it is hilarious that repoman cites this, when it was white evangelical radicals that went to Africa and indoctrinated these people with this BS, as part of their crusade against homosexuality.
I'm not sure what your point is.
repoman was mocking blacks for their "inferiority". So the point was, it was a bunch of white people that came up with the idea in the first place.
Why do you think repoman was saying blacks were inferior?

His post in this thread can have a wide variety of interpretations; that's among the worst for him. You might be right, but the evidence seems to be very weak.
 

Angra Mainyu

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
4,069
Location
Buenos Aires
Basic Beliefs
non-theist
You are right as long as we ignore several years of his racist posts.

First, I'm not familiar with the details of his posting record. However, I am familiar with the fact that, in this forum, unwarranted accusations of racism are commonplace. In light of that, I'm not going to take your claim as strong evidence. Now it might be true, for all I know. But it might as well not be so.

Second, even if he is a racist, it would be a strange form of mockery. Remember, you first assume that he is making fun of black people and saying that they are inferior, and then you further assume that he's not making sense because white evangelicals who proselytized in Africa came up with it (well, they did not, as they too were indoctrinated, but regardless, let's say because some white person came up with it). So, you are picking not only the interpretation that is among the worst for him in re: race (i.e., that he is mocking black people as inferior), but even an interpretation under which what he is saying does not seem to make any sense. Have you consider the possibility that maybe the reason that it is so hilarious to you that he would use this example is that he did not mean to say what you think he meant to say?
 
Top Bottom