Obama the Fascist

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Translation: It's time to be woke about woke people. Describe them with hyperbole and cancel them. Don't accept any precepts of anti-racism, anti-sexism awareness, unless it's about reverse racism, reverse sexism, and wokeness about that.

Whenever have I suggested cancelling people?

You just said to cancel the trans person in the other thread. Well, even worse, you said to take away the judicial enforcement of his rights.

And where have I ever advocated anything like your second sentence?

All the time. Your "misinterpretation" about what wokeness is, hyperbole about it, dismissiveness about wokeness, is a criticism of anti-racism and anti-sexism awareness.

 

[Metaphor]

You just said to cancel the trans person in the other thread.

Yeah na.

Well, even worse, you said to take away the judicial enforcement of his rights.

Did you just misgender Jessica Yaniv? Twitter would ban you for that.

But no, I did not say that. I said she ought not be able to appear as a complainant in a human rights tribunal ever again, as an exasperated expression of how fucking malicious her actions were and how absurd human rights tribunals have become. But, that exasperated expression wasn't a serious policy proposal. Yaniv can have all the "judicial enforcement" she wants--but human rights tribunals (and probably, the kinds of legislation that underpin them) need reform.

Imagine instead Yaniv had to find--and fund--a solicitor to bring a civil suit against the waxers. She might not have been so blasé about bringing a baseless case for it to be tossed out.

All the time. Your "misinterpretation" about what wokeness is, hyperbole about it, dismissiveness about wokeness, is a criticism of anti-racism and anti-sexism awareness.

I don't "dismiss" wokeness. To dismiss it is to think it is of no impact. No, I don't "dismiss" it. It is outright fucking dangerous. When you can equate misgendering somebody, even on purpose, with an act of "violence", you are a dangerous person. And when you believe you ought have the power of the State to enforce your madness, you are even more dangerous.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yeah na.



Did you just misgender Jessica Yaniv? Twitter would ban you for that.

But no, I did not say that. I said she ought not be able to appear as a complainant in a human rights tribunal ever again, as an exasperated expression of how fucking malicious her actions were and how absurd human rights tribunals have become. But, that exasperated expression wasn't a serious policy proposal. Yaniv can have all the "judicial enforcement" she wants--but human rights tribunals (and probably, the kinds of legislation that underpin them) need reform.

Imagine instead Yaniv had to find--and fund--a solicitor to bring a civil suit against the waxers. She might not have been so blasé about bringing a baseless case for it to be tossed out.

None of that should mean she should never have her rights enforced by such court and not having such enforced rights leaves her vulnerable. Yet you've doubled down on it.

All the time. Your "misinterpretation" about what wokeness is, hyperbole about it, dismissiveness about wokeness, is a criticism of anti-racism and anti-sexism awareness.

I don't "dismiss" wokeness. To dismiss it is to think it is of no impact. No, I don't "dismiss" it. It is outright fucking dangerous. When you can equate misgendering somebody, even on purpose, with an act of "violence", you are a dangerous person. And when you believe you ought have the power of the State to enforce your madness, you are even more dangerous.

Yeah, no. You are clearly dismissive of the legitimate aspects of wokeness, preferring instead to focus on anecdotes of extremists. You won't even allow a rational definition, only speak to one word.

 

[Metaphor]

None of that should mean she should never have her rights enforced by such court and not having such enforced rights leaves her vulnerable. Yet you've doubled down on it.

I didn't double down. I in fact walked it back. I said it was an exasperated expression about how this lunatic character was abusing the system. I walked it back when I said it wasn't an actual policy position to forbid Yaniv from being a complainant in human rights tribunals (not courts, though they still of course have the power of the State).

In fact, bad actors like Yaniv can only cause limited destruction without State apparatus. It's the human rights tribunals themselves, and Canada's problematic idea of human rights (like that you have the right to make people use your pronouns) that aid and abet these bad actors.

Yeah, no. You are clearly dismissive of the legitimate aspects of wokeness, preferring instead to focus on anecdotes of extremists. You won't even allow a rational definition, only speak to one word.

If wokeness has "legitimate aspects", then I won't disagree with them. It's telling that you think I've picked the anecdotes of extremists, when in fact misgendering-as-violence is widely accepted among the "woke".

But as a movement overall, the woke are deranged and dangerous. Deranged because they hold some fantastically strange beliefs (like that people are attracted to genders and not sexes, or that seven year old children have the cognitive werewithall to consent to puberty blockers, that black people are gunned down disproportionately and unfairly by American police, that fatness is not unhealthy or unattractive), and dangerous because they have large sections of the media and popular culture, as well as the law, under their influence.