Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 274

Thread: The World is Stupid

  1. Top | #101
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    The opposite of fascism is tolerance. You're not tolerant. As your statement clearly demonstrates.

    The problem with evil is that evil people rarely think they're evil. They're convinced they're the good guys.
    So you're just using those terms as vague insults, rather than political descriptors with actual meaning?

    I don't know whether I agree that "tolerance" is an unquestionable virtue, but I also think that promoting racist public discourse as a cure for racism is an act of mental gymnastics so profound it would be fascinating if I did not encounter it so depressingly often.
    It's not a vague insult. The old timey Nazis and communists were part of the same movement, totalitarians. It was an anti tolerant movement, where a lot of effort was spent on rooting out the enemy of the people. I group them both up in the fascist bag, even though on paper they're supposed to be mortal enemies. In practice wherever they took power the end result was quite similar. Their shared enemy was the liberals.

    The rise of neo-fascism today and the rise of Woke is the same thing. It's the same political force. It's just the modern version of it. The increasing political polarization isn't because the neo-fascists are super bad and the left are super good. Both the left and right are becoming increasingly evil. I think it's more clear communication if we slap the same label on both of them. Since they're essentially the same thing. Labels rarely catch every dimension of a persons beliefs. But I think it's close enough. That's why I call you fascist.

    It's as interesting, and funny as it is sad, that you think tolerance is the gateway towards racism. I disagree.

    I'm a liberal. Tolerance is one of my highest ideals. Liberalism is the opposite of fascism. I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.

  2. Top | #102
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Republic of Korea
    Posts
    1,537
    Archived
    1,216
    Total Posts
    2,753
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Woke hell is where everybody's language is policed so nobody ever says anything potentially offensive, even by mistake. Clear and authentic communication becomes difficult. Everybody lies most of the time.
    Let me get this straight. In your hypothetical woke hell you might be walking down the street with a friend and say, "Watch out for that black cat," and the person you are walking with will say, "How rude, that cat is 'melanisticly endowed.' I don't think we can be friends anymore." So the next time you are walking down the street, your other friend trips over a cat because this time the cat was white and you didn't know how to politely warn them.

  3. Top | #103
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,187
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    35,873
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Let me get this straight. In your hypothetical woke hell
    Reality is not that far off your hypothetical. 13 years ago a black politician complained that the term "black hole" was racist.
    Dallas County officials spar over 'black hole' comment

    Back then, we laughed about the idiot. But now woke idiots like him are running the asylum.

  4. Top | #104
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Woke hell is where everybody's language is policed so nobody ever says anything potentially offensive, even by mistake. Clear and authentic communication becomes difficult. Everybody lies most of the time.
    Let me get this straight. In your hypothetical woke hell you might be walking down the street with a friend and say, "Watch out for that black cat," and the person you are walking with will say, "How rude, that cat is 'melanisticly endowed.' I don't think we can be friends anymore." So the next time you are walking down the street, your other friend trips over a cat because this time the cat was white and you didn't know how to politely warn them.
    Yes. It's an exaggerated example, but shows very well what I'm talking about. Your example is the extreme end the sliding scale of woke.

    If somebody is a racist, but manages to avoid using racially charged words, they might think of themselves as not being racist. They might even think that they are the good people, fighting racism. Because they've tripped themselves up in a mire of virtue signaling. I've been to so many stiff middle class parties where everybody is virtue signaling and extoling the brave actions of this or that brown or gay person, and where everybody is white and CIS and works at a company where anybody not white is so adjusted to the Scandinavian culture that they are more stereotypically Scandinavian than the white people. These people are continually tripping over the cat, but don't even realize they are.

  5. Top | #105
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    4,345
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    6,095
    Rep Power
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zorq View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Woke hell is where everybody's language is policed so nobody ever says anything potentially offensive, even by mistake. Clear and authentic communication becomes difficult. Everybody lies most of the time.
    Let me get this straight. In your hypothetical woke hell you might be walking down the street with a friend and say, "Watch out for that black cat," and the person you are walking with will say, "How rude, that cat is 'melanisticly endowed.' I don't think we can be friends anymore." So the next time you are walking down the street, your other friend trips over a cat because this time the cat was white and you didn't know how to politely warn them.
    Yes. It's an exaggerated example, but shows very well what I'm talking about. Your example is the extreme end the sliding scale of woke.

    If somebody is a racist, but manages to avoid using racially charged words, they might think of themselves as not being racist. They might even think that they are the good people, fighting racism. Because they've tripped themselves up in a mire of virtue signaling. I've been to so many stiff middle class parties where everybody is virtue signaling and extoling the brave actions of this or that brown or gay person, and where everybody is white and CIS and works at a company where anybody not white is so adjusted to the Scandinavian culture that they are more stereotypically Scandinavian than the white people. These people are continually tripping over the cat, but don't even realize they are.
    What's "tripping over the cat" in this analogy?

    It seems like you're trying to say that politically correct white people would do more about systemic racism if they weren't preoccupied with politically correct speech?

  6. Top | #106
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    What's "tripping over the cat" in this analogy?

    It seems like you're trying to say that politically correct white people would do more about systemic racism if they weren't preoccupied with politically correct speech?
    It's more insidious than that. I'm arguing that they have no interest in ending systemic racism. It's just something they say. Their actions and their words don't match. They may have fooled themselves they're not racists.

    My impression is that the woke crowd want black people to stay victims so that they get to show compassion. But they have no interest in actually empowering non-whites. That's why they put so much effort in identifying symbols of victimhood. If you're a victim you have no power and you have no reason to try.

    I see it as a continuation of the old timey white supremacy. While the woke language is inverted, it is in practice the same thing, because nowhere in the woke way of thinking is a plan for victims of oppression to stop being victims. The main difference is that the white supremacists now get to think of themselves as anti-racists. Current society is like an abused wife who manage to leave their husband only to find a new abusive husband, because we're not aware of the underlying mechanics behind white supremacy. It's a social dynamic that we recognize. It's familiar and therefore feels unthreatening. So we cling to it. We say we want change while clinging to the old.

    That's why South Park's PC Principle is such a genius character. All he wants to do is get lit with his bros and score hot white chicks. He hopes that aggressively enforcing woke slogans will impress the hot white chicks. He has zero interest in what non-white non-CIS people think about anything. The parties he goes to is only ever just a bunch of frat boys. His culture is built around claiming to try to include minorities while implicitly excluding them. That's what woke is.

    Woke doesn't fight racism. It perpetuates racism.

  7. Top | #107
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    19,022
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    60,965
    Rep Power
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    It's not the Swedish way. It's the only way that works everywhere.

    Terrorism is by definition the last resort of an outgunned enemy. Its about creating terror greater than them just showing up with guns.

    Nazi Germany was a real military threat. Terrorists never are, by definition.

    Because terrorism is violence from a belligerent side that can't win, by ignoring them we are defeating them.
    Give a successful example of defeating terrorists who perform actual violent acts by ignoring them.
    History is full of them.

    The atheist anarchists of the early 20'th century. No government took them particularly seriously. They had other more serious problems to worry about. Eventually the militant anarchists went away.

    Another good one is IRA's terror attacks in London. In the 50'ies to 70'ies the Brits in northern Ireland became more and more extreme in clamping down on IRA. Only swelling the ranks of IRA. In the 80'ies they reversed policy and became lenient and chill. They started treating IRA bomb attacks like bad weather. A couple of years ago IRA disarmed.
    Your interpretation of history is mistaken. The Brits did not ignore the IRA, they were patient and engaged with them in talks.
    It also heloed that the Irish got suck of the IRA and the Provis.

  8. Top | #108
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,229
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    14,975
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    History is full of them.

    The atheist anarchists of the early 20'th century. No government took them particularly seriously. They had other more serious problems to worry about. Eventually the militant anarchists went away.

    Another good one is IRA's terror attacks in London. In the 50'ies to 70'ies the Brits in northern Ireland became more and more extreme in clamping down on IRA. Only swelling the ranks of IRA. In the 80'ies they reversed policy and became lenient and chill. They started treating IRA bomb attacks like bad weather. A couple of years ago IRA disarmed.
    Your interpretation of history is mistaken. The Brits did not ignore the IRA, they were patient and engaged with them in talks.
    It also heloed that the Irish got suck of the IRA and the Provis.
    You're just repeating what I said in other words.

  9. Top | #109
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,481
    Rep Power
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by ZiprHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea View Post
    It is difficult to explain why a person would use their medial fingers to count to one and two, and then switch to their dorsal fingers when they reach three.
    Dorsal fingers? Where did you get that from? Dr. Zoidberg's textbook on human anatomy?
    Uh, cuz that's what they're called?

    HAHAHAHA.. that is because the picture is of the BACK of the hand..... HAHAHAHAHA

  10. Top | #110
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,170
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    The opposite of fascism is tolerance. You're not tolerant. As your statement clearly demonstrates.

    The problem with evil is that evil people rarely think they're evil. They're convinced they're the good guys.
    So you're just using those terms as vague insults, rather than political descriptors with actual meaning?

    I don't know whether I agree that "tolerance" is an unquestionable virtue, but I also think that promoting racist public discourse as a cure for racism is an act of mental gymnastics so profound it would be fascinating if I did not encounter it so depressingly often.
    It's not a vague insult. The old timey Nazis and communists were part of the same movement, totalitarians. It was an anti tolerant movement, where a lot of effort was spent on rooting out the enemy of the people. I group them both up in the fascist bag, even though on paper they're supposed to be mortal enemies. In practice wherever they took power the end result was quite similar. Their shared enemy was the liberals.

    The rise of neo-fascism today and the rise of Woke is the same thing. It's the same political force. It's just the modern version of it. The increasing political polarization isn't because the neo-fascists are super bad and the left are super good. Both the left and right are becoming increasingly evil. I think it's more clear communication if we slap the same label on both of them. Since they're essentially the same thing. Labels rarely catch every dimension of a persons beliefs. But I think it's close enough. That's why I call you fascist.

    It's as interesting, and funny as it is sad, that you think tolerance is the gateway towards racism. I disagree.

    I'm a liberal. Tolerance is one of my highest ideals. Liberalism is the opposite of fascism. I think you and me couldn't be further apart politically.
    In both fascist and totalitarian systems, the government itself plays a central role in creating a falsely glorified ideal of the State to invigorate the public, while employing extreme violence against any threats to their paradigm of power. I endorse no such thing, and never have. I think simple decency and good conduct are sufficient to shame racists back under their rocks most of the time; they aren't brave people. Only one political faction has recently tried to illegitimately seize the houses of government lately, and I do not support them in any way.

    Tolerance is not the "gateway towards racism", but tolerating racism - that is, not saying anything or creating any social consequences for those who do and say racist things - is fomenting racism. I see very little value in "tolerance", which is an inherently unstable state. As an ideal the good should always be celebrated when possible, the bad condemned.It is not always possible. But opportunities to promote good things and decry evil should always be taken if they arise. Tolerance is an occasional practical necessity but it makes for a dubious end goal. "I tolerate you" is a weird sentence to say out loud to someone's face for a reason: it is not the same thing as respect, or even decency. I want to be able to say to my neighbor "I love you, I respect you, I support you", not "I tolerate you".

    It's weird to me that the Blue Dog types have gone from using the term "liberal" to mean exactly the same pejorative and vaguely defined thing they now call "woke", to decrying the latter while insisting that they themselves are now liberals. In ten more years, will we be seeing posts like "I'm as Woke as anyone, but those 25ers just take things a step too far! Just because you have rights doesn't mean you should cram them down my throat!" blah blah blah
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •