The World is Stupid

[DrZoidberg]

I think you see this completely backward. Wokes socially excluding a person based on them failing to use the right pronoun is stupidity and hatred in action. It's not the only example of stupidity and hatred. Your's is a very windy glass house.

Your response is a ridiculous straw man. It has nothing to do with your whining about someone losing their income.

I don't think it is. I also don't think it's whining. We have a serious problem today. It used to be that intolerant people were conservatives and liberal people were... well... liberals. But not the liberals are also intolerant. Good luck getting any kind of social progress in this situation.

Richard Florida's theory/measurement index is about the number of people in a city who value creativity higher than generating wealth. This leads the city to excel in generating wealth. In these cities qualities that lead to curiosity, creativity and innovation have higher status than just being rich. This leads to rich people wanting to socialize with poor creative types. Novel ideas and money mix freely generating innovative companies and wealth.

In other words, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

I think it does. Which is why I brought it up

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it is. I also don't think it's whining. We have a serious problem today. It used to be that intolerant people were conservatives and liberal people were... well... liberals. But not the liberals are also intolerant. Good luck getting any kind of social progress in this situation.

Hyperbole much?

I tire of the BS line about "the woke". People talk about "the woke" and we are supposed to take it at face value. But "the woke" haven't influenced much at all. We get these ridiculous rants and raves about some nobody who did something in an article blasted on far right-wing media... meanwhile, Donald Trump has convinced two states to run fake vote audits and is endangering the very basis of our democracy. But no, that isn't important, what matters is that Beth said something crazy and was employed as a professor at some school.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then you don't understand what the word bigot means. You're free to come back after you looked it up. Or you truly don't think wokes are bigots which is terrifying. Nothing is more terrifying than evil people convinced of their goodness.

Thanks for the tip, it is probably about time we consulted the dictionary in this thread.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/woke
Definition of woke (Entry 1 of 2)
chiefly US slang
: aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)

Going by the dictionary definitions, it does not seem to me that wokes are necessarily bigots. I am sorry if I terrify you, it is not my intent. If, however, you are actually terrified by my posts, that would shine a bit of light on why you think social pressure is such a bad thing.

I suggest you read the dictionary definitions you just posted a couple of times. I couldn't formulate it more succinctly than that. It doesn't say what you think it says.

Yes, wokes are typically used about the left.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you rephrase?

But there is a corresponding behaviour on the right, that we take as a normal part of the right. So we don't react. But it's the same thing. It's labelling everybody with the wrong opinions as irredeemably wicked and who needs to be expunged from society.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we". I happen to have good friends on the right. We are able to talk about politics without violence. I have been known to call them idiots for voting for Trump, and they have been known to call me a dumbass for supporting Hillary, though many of them were surprisingly fine with my supporting Bernie Sanders. A couple of them even voted for Biden after Trump's first term. We do not view each other as irredeemably wicked, or needing to be expunged from society, we have a laugh and a beer while we talk politics. I am not sure why you assume such bad things about those with whom you disagree, but in my experience few of the supporters of either side are extremists about it. That's kind of why we call them extremists.

Then why is deplatforming a thing?

 

[KeepTalking]

I suggest you read the dictionary definitions you just posted a couple of times. I couldn't formulate it more succinctly than that. It doesn't say what you think it says.

It says a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, whereas a woke person is aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues. There is no intersection between those definitions. A woke person is not necessarily obstinately or intolerably devoted to their own opinions and prejudices. What about these definitions indicates to you that a woke person must necessarily be a bigot?

But there is a corresponding behaviour on the right, that we take as a normal part of the right. So we don't react. But it's the same thing. It's labelling everybody with the wrong opinions as irredeemably wicked and who needs to be expunged from society.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we". I happen to have good friends on the right. We are able to talk about politics without violence. I have been known to call them idiots for voting for Trump, and they have been known to call me a dumbass for supporting Hillary, though many of them were surprisingly fine with my supporting Bernie Sanders. A couple of them even voted for Biden after Trump's first term. We do not view each other as irredeemably wicked, or needing to be expunged from society, we have a laugh and a beer while we talk politics. I am not sure why you assume such bad things about those with whom you disagree, but in my experience few of the supporters of either side are extremists about it. That's kind of why we call them extremists.

Then why is deplatforming a thing?

Because it has always been a thing. Why do you think people who do not agree with a bigot should be obligated to use their time, effort, and money to provide a platform for that bigot to amplify their speech?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It says a bigot is a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, whereas a woke person is aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues. There is no intersection between those definitions. A woke person is not necessarily obstinately or intolerably devoted to their own opinions and prejudices. What about these definitions indicates to you that a woke person must necessarily be a bigot?

I think all you've done is given an excellent example of how evil works. Your definition of woke is how the woke define themselves. While your definition of bigot is how other people see the wokes. Evil are evil because they believe they're good. They think their goodness justify all the awful things they're doing.

Wokes are NOT aware of and attentive to important facts and issues more than the rest of us. They just like to pretend they do. Wokes are as self interested, self promoting and tribal as anybody else. Obviously. It's human nature.

Recycling is a good example of woke in action. When it comes to fighting climate change environmentalists rarely focus on the stuff that works (living in smaller housing and moving into the city centre), but rather focus on the stuff visible to others, like recycling. Your neighbours see how well you recycle. Your guests in your home will see how well you recycle. It's the same with racism and their fight against homophobia. Wokes are more preoccupied with appearing woke than actually having all the nice qualities they pretend to have.

And it's not like we don't know the bottom of this slippery slope. Maoist China and the USSR are excellent examples of this. Mao just said all those nice slogans. Ultimately it was a power game and he spent his life living in palaces and fucking concubines, just like any emperor before him. He might have believed all those things once upon a time. But whenever he actually got into a position to do any of it he was willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to stay in power. That's how power works.

What has protected us from wokes in the past is their lack of power. But that's changing. Wokes are now the most powerful political force in the west. No shit that makes me concerned. It's terrifying because they're so convinced of their own goodness that they seem to lack the ability to see the effects of their own behaviour.

But there is a corresponding behaviour on the right, that we take as a normal part of the right. So we don't react. But it's the same thing. It's labelling everybody with the wrong opinions as irredeemably wicked and who needs to be expunged from society.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we". I happen to have good friends on the right. We are able to talk about politics without violence. I have been known to call them idiots for voting for Trump, and they have been known to call me a dumbass for supporting Hillary, though many of them were surprisingly fine with my supporting Bernie Sanders. A couple of them even voted for Biden after Trump's first term. We do not view each other as irredeemably wicked, or needing to be expunged from society, we have a laugh and a beer while we talk politics. I am not sure why you assume such bad things about those with whom you disagree, but in my experience few of the supporters of either side are extremists about it. That's kind of why we call them extremists.

Then why is deplatforming a thing?

Because it has always been a thing. Why do you think people who do not agree with a bigot should be obligated to use their time, effort, and money to provide a platform for that bigot to amplify their speech?

That's not what deplatforming means. Deplatforming means denying platforms to people you don't want to listen to anyway. Deplatforming is when political enemies use social pressure to deny fans of someone the ability to listen to a person they're a fan of.

You've confused deplatforming with simply not being popular. I'm cool with people who nobody wants to listen to aren't provided a platform from which to talk.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I don't think it is. I also don't think it's whining. We have a serious problem today. It used to be that intolerant people were conservatives and liberal people were... well... liberals. But not the liberals are also intolerant. Good luck getting any kind of social progress in this situation.

Hyperbole much?

I tire of the BS line about "the woke". People talk about "the woke" and we are supposed to take it at face value. But "the woke" haven't influenced much at all. We get these ridiculous rants and raves about some nobody who did something in an article blasted on far right-wing media... meanwhile, Donald Trump has convinced two states to run fake vote audits and is endangering the very basis of our democracy. But no, that isn't important, what matters is that Beth said something crazy and was employed as a professor at some school.

Trumps badness doesn't increase the goodness of the wokes. I see it more than Trumpism is a reaction to woke. These are two wings on the same movement, increasing intolerance. The right feels they need to get more extreme in order to counter the lefts increasing extremism. Not to goodwin this. But this is exactly the mechanic of the 1920'ies and 1930'ies. If it hadn't been the threat of communism there's no way in hell Hitler would have gotten anywhere. If it hadn't been the threat of wokes (ie Hillary), no way Trump would have been elected. I'm on the left, but even I felt the cognitive dissonance between what Hilary was doing and saying. She seems to be a pretty standard slick corrupt self interested politician, yet spouted disingenuous woke slogans at every turn.

My knowledge of this is primarily local. Sweden.

The big damage the wokes are doing is to our university system. Professors have lost their jobs in Sweden for not being politically correct. Even when the political correct opinion went counter to science. I know several of these professors personally. Which is why I'm so initiated in how it works. Even in grade schools. Discipline in suburban schools (many immigrants) have broken down because non-whites can't be reprimanded without risking disciplinary actions.

It's also led to retarded laws being passed. A couple of years ago the Swedish parliament passed a law on gender equal snow clearance. Since women rode bikes more than men. And men drove cars more. So it was decided that roads and bike paths would be cleared of snow equally much. The same day the law was passed crime spiked, houses burned down more and ambulances came too late to patients to save lives. Because roads weren't cleared for the emergency services.

But I know it's a problem internationally as well. The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal was all about empowered wokes. Every government instance in place intended to protect children at risk failed to kick in because the perpetrators were ethnically Pakistani. That's fear and terror in action. The threat of woke doesn't need to be all that great to have extreme effects.

 

[KeepTalking]

I think all you've done is given an excellent example of how evil works. Your definition of woke is how the woke define themselves.

No. I gave you the definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Dictionaries are what people use to inform themselves about what words mean. As far as I know Merriam-Webster is not "the woke", but if you feel that is the case, feel free to provide a definition from a well regarded non-woke dictionary.

While your definition of bigot is how other people see the wokes.

It is obvious that it is how you see the wokes, but I am also "other people", and I do not see them that way.

Evil are evil because they believe they're good.

How does that work? Are you evil because you think you are good? Does it work the opposite way? Is a person good because they believe they are evil? How does the above statement work when applied to you or me?

They think their goodness justify all the awful things they're doing.

What awful things would that be? Please be specific.

When you do awful things, do you think your goodness justifies them?

Wokes are NOT aware of and attentive to important facts and issues more than the rest of us. They just like to pretend they do. Wokes are as self interested, self promoting and tribal as anybody else. Obviously. It's human nature.

The definition makes no mention of them being more aware than everyone else. Obviously there are people with differing levels of attention and awareness, and there will be those who exhibit no awareness or attention to important facts and issues.

Recycling is a good example of woke in action. When it comes to fighting climate change environmentalists rarely focus on the stuff that works (living in smaller housing and moving into the city centre), but rather focus on the stuff visible to others, like recycling. Your neighbours see how well you recycle. Your guests in your home will see how well you recycle. It's the same with racism and their fight against homophobia. Wokes are more preoccupied with appearing woke than actually having all the nice qualities they pretend to have.

And it's not like we don't know the bottom of this slippery slope. Maoist China and the USSR are excellent examples of this. Mao just said all those nice slogans. Ultimately it was a power game and he spent his life living in palaces and fucking concubines, just like any emperor before him. He might have believed all those things once upon a time. But whenever he actually got into a position to do any of it he was willing to sacrifice anything and everyone to stay in power. That's how power works.

What has protected us from wokes in the past is their lack of power. But that's changing. Wokes are now the most powerful political force in the west. No shit that makes me concerned. It's terrifying because they're so convinced of their own goodness that they seem to lack the ability to see the effects of their own behaviour.

First, recycling has noting to do with being woke.

Now that we have that out of the way, the above is an indication that you think that we should be protected from those who recycle, as well as those who fight against racism and homophobia. That is a ridiculous notion that flips the conversation about bigotry on its head. You seem to be of the position that bigots should be protected, and that everyone else needs to be protected against those who fight against bigotry (as well as those evil recyclers).

But there is a corresponding behaviour on the right, that we take as a normal part of the right. So we don't react. But it's the same thing. It's labelling everybody with the wrong opinions as irredeemably wicked and who needs to be expunged from society.

I'm not sure who you mean by "we". I happen to have good friends on the right. We are able to talk about politics without violence. I have been known to call them idiots for voting for Trump, and they have been known to call me a dumbass for supporting Hillary, though many of them were surprisingly fine with my supporting Bernie Sanders. A couple of them even voted for Biden after Trump's first term. We do not view each other as irredeemably wicked, or needing to be expunged from society, we have a laugh and a beer while we talk politics. I am not sure why you assume such bad things about those with whom you disagree, but in my experience few of the supporters of either side are extremists about it. That's kind of why we call them extremists.

Then why is deplatforming a thing?

Because it has always been a thing. Why do you think people who do not agree with a bigot should be obligated to use their time, effort, and money to provide a platform for that bigot to amplify their speech?

That's not what deplatforming means. Deplatforming means denying platforms to people you don't want to listen to anyway. Deplatforming is when political enemies use social pressure to deny fans of someone the ability to listen to a person they're a fan of.

You've confused deplatforming with simply not being popular. I'm cool with people who nobody wants to listen to aren't provided a platform from which to talk.

Please show me an instance of a platform saying "We agree with, and are fans of <insert bigoted person here> but we will not allow them to say it on this platform because the wokes won't let us." or something similar. Otherwise, I see no difference between the deplatforming you claim is happening and how I have described deplatforming.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think it is. I also don't think it's whining. We have a serious problem today. It used to be that intolerant people were conservatives and liberal people were... well... liberals. But not the liberals are also intolerant. Good luck getting any kind of social progress in this situation.

Hyperbole much?

I tire of the BS line about "the woke". People talk about "the woke" and we are supposed to take it at face value. But "the woke" haven't influenced much at all. We get these ridiculous rants and raves about some nobody who did something in an article blasted on far right-wing media... meanwhile, Donald Trump has convinced two states to run fake vote audits and is endangering the very basis of our democracy. But no, that isn't important, what matters is that Beth said something crazy and was employed as a professor at some school.

Trumps badness doesn't increase the goodness of the wokes.

Again, there is this presumption that "the wokes" is a thing. Like unicorns. The whole "woke" thing is just like the "PC" thing where these massive strawmen were invented by the right-wing, using hyperbole to mock an otherwise nuanced shift in public thought.

I see it more than Trumpism is a reaction to woke.

We are aware of how out of touch you are with American sociology, history, and current events. So this doesn't come as a surprise, as "Trumpism" was born out of several moments in US history, that really dates back to Reconstruction, but contemporary-wise, Nixon's embracing of the Southern Strategy. This would snowball into more recently the Tea Party in '08, then the wildly ridiculous '12 GOP primary where the Trumpers did all they could to not have Romney as their candidate. In fact, their logic was so failed, they supported Newt Gingrich (twice) who couldn't be any less a DC Outsider. This movement then finally breaks through as there is no Romney like candidate, and Trump is able to take a small plurality to the nomination. The Trumpers are born out of 30+ years of AM radio and right-wing Cable News, which has been whining about how bad liberals are since the 80s, well before "woke" was ever a thing. The lies snowballed into a monstrosity which now claims Biden is a socialist, not a Democratic Socialist, but a Marxist.

The AM Radio and Cable News attacked Clinton relentlessly, and not because he was a liberal. They attacked the Democrats against an Iraq invasion, questioning if they were financed by Hussein, and the patriotism of any American that questioned it, Libertarian Bill Maher loses his television show for saying you aren't a coward for flying a plane into a tower (not defending anyone, but saying that requires some level of courage), Obama is attacked with his place of birth treated like a conspiracy theory.

The fact a person like Bill Maher appears to be a flaming liberal indicates the "woke" aren't the issue, the right-wing has tilted hard to the far right. But again, you aren't familiar with America, so I can understand why you are seemingly clueless about all of this.

 

[Elixir]

Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
Evil are evil because they believe they're good.

How does that work? Are you evil because you think you are good?

I think you got it right there, KT.

Does it work the opposite way? Is a person good because they believe they are evil?

Absolutely. Ask any televangelist.
Make yourself good: admit that you owe them money!

 

[Emily Lake]

It's worse than stupid, it's full blown retard;

A Sacramento high school teacher has been placed on leave after displaying the Nazi flag during a World War II history lesson, school officials said Wednesday. In a letter to parents, Rio Americano High School Principal Brian Ginter said that the teacher will be on administrative leave until the investigation is over. The teacher teaches English and Social Science at the high school. Raj Rai, spokesperson for San Juan Unified School District, said students told staff about the flag on May 13 and that the flag came down the next day. She added that the students who alerted staff were passersby and not part of the class. It's not known how many days the flag was displayed before the district became aware. Rai said the issue at hand is not about a history lesson, but instead, she said it is about students being made uncomfortable by the flag, the flag's prominent presence in the classroom, and that symbol being in the classroom.

ABCNews

“While images and symbols representative of hate may be used in textbooks and resource materials to provide historical context, displaying a flag with a swastika in such an egregious manner was unnecessary and created an unsafe environment for students,” Ginter said in the letter.

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools in California and go private and homeschool.


Oh, and it you watch the video of the report which shows the flags on display, the swastika is actually BLURRED OUT !

Weapons grade morons.

I think somebody completely redefined the word "safe" when I wasn't paying attention. How can a flag that is appropriate in context of the material being taught make the environment "unsafe"?

 

[Swammerdami]

If you're still optimistic, perhaps this video will cure you.
[YOUTUBE]ythOLteROK0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TSwizzle]

More stupidity;

An Oregon middle school was exposed by furious parents after likening her colleagues to pedophiles and warning them they'd be fired if they refused to teach critical race theory. Katherine Watkins, an 8th grade humanities teacher at Cedar Park Middle School in Beaverton, Portland, told colleagues during a Zoom 'equity conference' that if they were 'going to keep up those old views of colonialism, it's going to lead to being fired'.

DailyMail

The video is actually quite funny as a number of other teachers enthusiastically nod their heads in agreement. Mind you, Ms (am I allowed to say Ms?) Watkins' choice of headgear is a bit iffy, some "cultural appropriation" going on there I think.

No wonder people go to private schools and home school when these morons are the teachers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's worse than stupid, it's full blown retard;

ABCNews

No wonder so many people opt out of state schools in California and go private and homeschool.
Oh, and it you watch the video of the report which shows the flags on display, the swastika is actually BLURRED OUT !

Weapons grade morons.

I think somebody completely redefined the word "safe" when I wasn't paying attention. How can a flag that is appropriate in context of the material being taught make the environment "unsafe"?

Well, it could be noted the reasons for displaying a Nazi flag are many fewer than reasons for not displaying a Nazi flag. That some students could find it offensive shouldn't really be surprising, especially students who were Jewish. That the teacher's students themselves didn't complain would imply it was a prop and he wasn't trying to indoctrinate the goodness of WWII Germany.

With lawsuit fever in the US being pandemic, Principals aren't exactly in a great position. You'll see some people call them "dimwitted' and "morons", when in fact, they have a responsibility for the school and they'll be getting phone calls from their bosses about the lawsuits presented to the School District. So we move back to the beginning of this post, risk a lawsuit or take down the flag. Which is the lower risk for the School District? You'd have to be dimwitted or a weapons grade moron not to know. We've been sued! Why did you let the teacher keep a Nazi flag hung in his classroom?! You'd be surprised that there really isn't a good answer to that question when a lawsuit has been filed. As I've learned the engineering world (thanks to lawyers), it often isn't enough to "just" be right.

Yes, in some of these situations, there seems to be a tendency sometimes to accommodate misimpressions over reality. That the teacher is on leave is a bit troubling, without further context supporting such an action, though I'm sure the teacher's union will be on it. But to consider the Principal to be an idiot is extraordinarily ignorant and short-sighted, especially in our litigious nation.

 

[Trausti]