Lurker > joe40001

hockeybub89 posted...

There is no such thing as a woke movement. Please refrain from posting until you discuss the real world.

I'm not suggesting there's an organization, but when it comes to things that get called "woke", things like "how to be an antiracist" or "white fragility", things like transwomen in male competitive sport, things like "don't use the term master bedroom because it has racist origins" (even though it doesn't), moves to remove standardized tests, or many more many more things like this.

These things get called woke. So what would you call them being pushed in aggregate? If you disapprove of the phrase "woke movement"?

I mean even the civil rights movement went too far in things like certain violent acts of the black panthers. But when we look back at history at good movements we tend to just omit the parts that everybody recognizes in retrospect were not good parts.

Things aren't "good guys with no bad points" vs "bad guys with no good points". That's just a lazy way to live and view the world.

I gotta say, for some people on the internet it seems like this isn't about helping anyone or anything but just "feeling good you are on the right side of history." And sorry to break it to you, but actual activism seldom feels good. Some people act like they are "just like the people who marched in Selma" even though those people faced real risks, sometimes went to prison, and like also just didn't sit behind a computer all day.

I doubt MLK spent most of his time and energy just feeling smug as fuck about how "ahead of the times" he was. He didn't spend all his time and energy calling everybody else a bigot, even though the types of bigotry he put up with are 1000x times worse than what gets called bigotry these days. Instead real activist leaders like him fought and caused measurable real world change. And still, I see a lot of people doing nothing tangible to actually improve the world but also clearly just feeling like just the greatest person in history about how ahead of the times they are.

Actual activism is hard work where you meet obstacles and cause measurable change in reality, it's not typing at home feeling good about how much better you are than the "evil bigots" of the world.

That's not activism that's self-indulgence. And some people should learn the difference if they want to actually help the world improve.

I doubt this will get through to anybody. But if it causes somebody to take pause, I'll consider that a win. Put simply, and sorry to burst the self-congratulation bubble here:
Real activism is hard work and doesn't feel great. What many people here who applaud themselves for "being on the right side of history" are doing is literally nothing more than vain self-indulgence.

Nah, there are things in the woke movement that I think we will very likely be cringing at in the future. Like trying to remove the idea of merit, removing standardized tests, ideas like Kendi's, etc.

If you take any idea, stick "progressive" on it. That doesn't make it good or future wisdom. Same way that if you took any idea stuck "patriotic" on it, didn't make it good back in post 9/11.

That's what it feels like to me, btw. When trying to push back on some of the crazy parts to some people. Saying "what you are advocating here isn't progressive, it's dumb/dangerous" to a person who is all-in on these ideas, feels identical to what I'd imagine it would feel like to say "what you are advocating here isn't patriotic, it's dumb/dangerous." to a person pushing the patriot act in 2001.

It had the word "patriot" in it so they don't want to intellectually engage in it beyond that.

And these days the thing is called "progressive" so they don't want to intellectually engage in it beyond that.

And IMO that just a very low resolution way to exist.

Thank you TC for not being so cynical as to use the word "were" instead of "are".

People who do shit like that are not good for people with depression, and that kind of cynicism seems pretty common on the internet.

Honestly, I believe it's possible I'll have a "fun" day again, I haven't really since like I was a child, but I think that's just depression, and I think I will get back to just being able to have fun again. And I'm looking forward to that.

That and dating if it's in the cards for me.

COVxy posted...

"Classical liberals" are just libertarians. They are right-wing.

I disagree. I think there is a large group of people who were aligned with what was called liberalism up until 2010 or 2015, but then they started to recognize some of the bad ideas co-opting the "liberal" movement and distanced themselves from that.

I'm curious, would you consider a 2012 Obama supporter who takes issues with things like removing standardized tests, or things like emphasizing racialized discussions at a young age, or excessive word policing to be "right wing"?

Because that's the kind of person I'm talking about. To me that's a classical liberal. To me a 2012 type person like that is very much a liberal, but would be fairly strongly rejected by a lot of the mainstream left these days.

Antifar posted...

Democrats do wrong all the time, but Maher's criticisms are much more pointed towards college students than to those who have power in the party.

Sometimes college students, but frequently it will be towards colleges themselves or other institutions with dumb policies.

I think he does call out democrats themselves, but maybe not for what you would think are valid criticisms.

hockeybub89 posted...

The headline is generally under or over exaggerating the body.

Yeah or misrepresenting it in some way. I would agree with that.

hockeybub89 posted...

It took you 5 posts to use a female pronoun. You are consistently on the wrong side of things and like 90% of posts are nonsense that agrees with right-wing conspiracy theories. Please go ahead and burst the bubble. I'm never letting go of your ivermectin/HCQ bullshit.

So what is your argument about me here? That I am transphobic? That I hate Contrapoints? That I don't recognize the humanity in trans people? What specifically are you saying about me, my character, or my actions? I truly don't want to put words in your mouth and am genuinely curious what you are saying here.

And you can further clarify based on if the headline goes against your current beliefs or not. So like if it's somebody you don't like or a headline you don't agree with do you dismiss it as nonsense without reading the article, or are those the cases you are more likely to read?

Or is it that if the headline affirms your current beliefs, you are more likely to read the article because it's going to point to evidence that validates you, or more likely to skip it because it's telling you stuff you already know?

Really you can answer the question in whatever way feels best for you.

I ask because I've seen some topics here where it very much seemed like people only read the headline.

hockeybub89 posted...

By constantly complaining about how far "woke" has gone, which spreads the culture war bullshit that the far-right invented to justify oppressing and killing minorities. Anyone who disagrees with me is quite literally my enemy and a threat to every fiber of my being. At least the fascists give me the courtesy of not pretending to be anything else.

Thank you for answering the question. Couldn't one reasonably make the argument though that attacking the flaws in the left you are making them stronger and not weaker? That if the left cut out the overtly stupid parts of their agenda, the right would lose their talking points and crumble in support?

hockeybub89 posted...

Bill Maher is a stupid piece of shit masquerading as a concerned liberal who thinks "woke" has gone too far. Fuck him and anyone like him. He might as well be an out far-right nutcase if he's going to enable them.

How is he enabling the far-right?

hockeybub89 posted...

We all know you aren't exposed to that kind of content.

So, hockeybub, what is your argument? Because you are on the block bubble too, frankly.

Is your argument that I watched a 2 hour video, showed respect to the person making the video, and thoughtfully engaged in the ideas expressed in it, and then shared the video here... because I'm a hateful transphobe?

I know more than 5 sentences might scare some people, so I will try to be concise, but what, if anything, are you suggesting about me in this topic? Because you clearly have some strong opinions you are trying to point at, but I can't for the life of me figure out what you are trying to say.

Irony posted...

Bro I'm not reading that

People who literally take pride in looking down their nose at thoughtful responses and at being incapable of reading more than a few sentences.

I honestly don't know why I ever had hope you could communicate like a rational good faith adult, but yeah, bye. I've indulged you faaaaaaaaaaaar too long.

manhookcardoor posted...

Well thank you for watching the video and sharing. That's more than I'll probably ever do.

np

It's an interesting watch if you aren't usually exposed to that kind of content.

Antifar posted...

Maher's base, to the extent that he has one, is people like him: middle aged people who want to think of themselves and be viewed as "good liberals" but don't want the responsibility of engaging or identifying with current social movements that seek to apply the stated principles of "good liberals." The cultural cachet of left wing movements disconcerts them because they were at one point comfortable as the most progressive person in a given room, with all the social points that scored them, and now find that status challenged.

I'd say it's more like "classical liberals who are willing to call out the left, and don't sign on to the excesses of some of the woke nonsense."

Which is similar to what you are saying, but stated in a more charitable (and I think more accurate) way.

Besides the parts of the left that he pushes back against often aren't being "progressive", those parts sometimes oppose free speech, and reject certain things that defined progressivism up until like the last few years.

I think somebody like Bill is being a lot more intelligent and close to reality than anybody who subscribes to "Democrats can do no wrong." Which is not what I'm saying people here are necessarily arguing, but seems close to what is coming up in criticisms of Bill.

I'm sorry to everybody else here, I should know better than to engage such stuff. Getting sucked into internet nonsense is silly, and I don't like the irritable person it can make me become.

I hope everybody is having a good day.

Irony posted...

Yes he is

IMO a big reason the world is a worse place is because of bad internet discourse, and IMO a big reason for bad internet discourse is people like you.

People like you, who invent false narratives and strawmen and then when confronted with evidence that explicitly proves you wrong, you double down.

"joe must be a transphobe, he just talked respectfully about a trans person's video and said it was a thoughtful and engaging perspective but he acknowledged that he didn't agree with all of the video's claims! AND his pronoun usage was less overt than I think it must be! Joe is clearly a hateful person who wants to dehumanize! He is incapable of being anything than a transphobe because he is so hateful that he refuses to call Contrapoints a she."

Me: *Calls her a she.*

Others: "Joe isn't like that, you are wrong."

You: "YES HE IS, NO I'M NOT!"

So yeah, IMO people like you are why internet discourse is worse. You are so invested in your strawman that you never consider the possibility that the reductive and antagonistic way you frame people and the narrative is inaccurate, EVEN WHEN PROVEN WRONG.

This is just like the scenario for which I tagged you with your current tag "lies about my vaccination status". You INSISTED I was anti-vaxx, over and over, by me even bringing up the discussion of a risk benefit analysis on the COVID mRNA shots (particularly for younger demographics) you said JOE IS ANTI-VAXX. Furthermore, you said that I had never gotten any covid vaccine.

And then you literally did not change your claim at all when I made that topic showing my signed covid vaccine card. You saw it, I posted it the picture to you. And yet, you kept repeating something even though you had seen proof that you were wrong, because in people like your's mind, it would seem that nothing, NOTHING is sufficient to challenge your preconceived notions. Apparently, your reductive and antagonistic world view is more important to you than any proof that shows you are flat wrong.

And while ContraPoints is not my favorite youtuber, I do have so much more respect for people like her than people like you. Because she tries to engage ideas that are outside her beliefs. Unlike people like you who literally can't acknowledge FACTS staring you in the goddamn face that go against your narrative.

I've become more mentally healthy lately, and part of that is me trying to not give time to those who don't deserve my time or respect. I'm quicker to block bad faith trolls on the internet because honestly, fool me once shame on you, show me 10 billion times that you literally have no interest in engaging in any discussion outside of one that conforms to your blatantly false understanding of reality, shame of me for putting up with it.

The one major fault I still have in this regard is that part of me is really bothered with the idea that there are people as antagonistic and ignorant as you who will go unchallenged because everybody with sense just stops talking to them.

So I guess that's what this post is, one less hail mary attempt to give you a chance to admit that MAYBE on SOME of your reductive, divisive, sweeping generalizations about me for which you've literally seen proof that you are wrong, MAYBE you could acknowledge you MIGHT have not been perfectly accurate.

It's literally the bare minimum I'd expect a good faith and cognitively functioning human to be able to do, but I also simultaneously don't think you are capable of it.

If you respond with your regular bullshit, I'm going to just wise up and block you like I should have forever ago. You are likely going to feign that being blocked by me doesn't bother you, but if that were true you wouldn't spend so much time and energy acting like a dense douche in so many of my topics.

So yeah, if acknowledge the possibility that you MIGHT have been at least a TINY bit wrong, we can reset, I will forgive you for your mischaracterization of me, and I will give you tons of credit for having the capacity to be reasonable. But if you just double down again, it will just be pathetic and proof to me I should have blocked you ages ago.

Some of you are just the worst sometimes.

Anyway, I shared a video from a person sharing an interesting perspective. For the normal people who want to talk about the video some I'd be open to that, but I'm done humoring anybody being a troll. I've got better things to do, and honestly arguing with people who aren't talking in good faith is beneath me.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Wanna try again?

The question was about the video. Like I said, learn to read.

"What's this video?"

"It's a pretty famous movie review youtuber who is talking about the decline of Jurassic Park"

The "it" refers to the video, unless you are being dense or trolling trying to start shit, this is very clear.

MrToothHasYou posted...

For those of you keeping count at home, joenumbers has referred to Contrapoints as they, them, and it so far in this topic, but never she or her. Impressive stuff.

JFC I never referred to her as "it", learn to read, or at least learn to be less of a horrible douchey troll.

Buu_88 posted...

I keep seeing this video shared around but I'm not gonna watch something that's 2 hours. Who is this person and what's the video about?

It's a pretty famous trans youtuber who is taking about JK Rowling and how certain people frame JK Rowling as the victim of a "witch-hunt" type scenario for her TERF positions. And just kind of using that as a launchpad to talk about a few other related things.

This youtuber isn't my cup of tea, but I have a friend who likes them a lot, and I personally try to expose myself to ideas outside of my own bubble moderately regularly.

So I find it interesting in that capacity, but am not "recommending" it as such.

If you want to see a long ass video that I'd actually personally recommend, it would be something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btNL1q-yU7E

Interesting, I'll check it out.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Certain things I felt were too reductive. Saying anything like "what this person really means is this..." is generally not going to be super accurate if your speaking for a person you have contempt for, because odds are if you have contempt for them you don't really have a great ability to understand their mindset.

The biggest one I disagree with is the idea that approaches like Daryl Davis are inferior to more antagonistic or emotional responses. It wasn't explicitly claimed this way, but it kinda was.

Seemed like Contrapoints entertained the idea of rational discussion but then ultimately landed on "these people are bigots and so shaming and hating them and yelling them down is going to be the best approach." And I think that's all just painting with too much of a broad brush, and it's just not a premise I agree with personally.

IMO the way to help the most people and make the most progress is to have open and honest rational discussions even about delicate subjects. I got the impression that Contrapoints was ultimately pushing back against this.

I disagreed with some of the reductiveness they employed at points, and at the abstracted claims that resulted But still, I feel Contrapoints was acting in good faith, furthermore I support people freely sharing their opinions and perspectives and I think it's good to expose yourself to opinions and perspectives that you might disagree with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmT0i0xG6zg

Anybody else watch the video and have thoughts?