Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Generals]

I never really found that convincing. Its hinges on the assumption that those dirty neo liberals are just up to no good for.....no reason at all. There's no real motive aside from a very vague ''self hatred'' that sounds rather cartoony and sidesteps any argument that they're making.

That and it also assumes that a more equal society is a zero sum game. That better living conditions and equal rights for minorities inherently have to come at the cost of white people.

Neo liberals? Over here that means economically right wing.

No it's not for "no reason" at all. For the political left it gets them the votes from the new proletariat which came through immigration while also trying to justify their sudden change of attitude towards immigration to their native electorate. On top of that it allows them to not denounce this new proletariat which believes in none of the social policies the left otherwise pushes for (feminism, gay tolerance, etc.). It's cunning but it works, I think in Brussels over 90% of non-EU immigrants voted for left wing of far left parties.

For the left wing activists it's different, it's in part because of brain washing, they don't even realize how by their own standards of racism they are just like Fascists if you replace "foreigner" with "native". It's totally oblivious to them because of the constant lies and twisting of facts by the media, other activists and the political world. It's like those conspiracy theorists, to them you are the idiot/sheep because they don't see how their world view is entirely twisted by nonsense. And I think this probably represents the majority of neo-progressives. Victims of a very efficient propaganda machine.

But for the instigators it can be because they truly hate society as it is; and therefor why ask foreigners to integrate in this shitty society instead of using them to change it? For another group it is just desperate attention seeking, they just continuously want to push the boundaries to stay relevant and whenever a progressive fight is won they will want to find another one to fight, even if the fight is wrong. It's like how some soldiers cannot adapt to normal life anymore and want to be sent back on the battlefield, these neo progressives live for the fight and it will never end.

 

[Hades]

Neo liberals? Over here that means economically right wing.

Ah yes sorry bout that. I meant neo ''progressive'' until my autocorrect decided to shame me for it and I failed to notice.

For the left wing activists it's different, it's in part because of brain washing, they don't even realize how by their own standards of racism they are just like Fascists if you replace "foreigner" with "native". It's totally oblivious to them because of the constant lies and twisting of facts by the media, other activists and so forth. It's like those conspiracy theorists, to them you are the idiot/sheep.

Yeah that's the cartoony self hatred argument and sidestepping of arguments that I felt wasn't convincing before. Nor does the argument of ''what if those against fascism were the real fascists after all'' impress me.

No it's not for "no reason" at all. For the political left it gets them the votes from the new proletariat which came through immigration while also trying to justify their sudden change of attitude towards immigration to their native electorate. On top of that it allows them to not denounce this new proletariat which believes in none of the social policies the left otherwise pushes for (feminism, gay tolerance, etc.). It's cunning but it works, I think in Brussels over 90% of non-EU immigrants voted for left wing of far left parties.

Migrants and especially non western migrants voting for the left doesn't really have to do with the cunning of the left. Probably more so that the right keeps implying or even directly stating that they find the migrants to be complete vermin. Who else would the migrants vote for at that point? And while migrants might vote for the left due to economic reasons that's an utterly conventional affair. Migrants often end up in the lower class where they're the one who end up benefiting from left wing social programs the most. So if one party utterly detests the migrants and the other party is good for their financial prospect then its no great surprise that they would end up voting for the left.

And sure. There is discomfort between the left and the migrants on some social issues. But to present this as the left being cunning implies that their(and everyone's else's) support towards demographics should be conditional rather than ideological. You seem to blame the left for not taking the stance that only good little boys and girls should receive aid rather than all those that need it. As a leftist you can disagree with a group's social stances while still taking the stance that they shouldn't be treated like vermin, that their citizenships should legally be considered just as valid as everyone else, and that they do have rights like everyone else.

The argument also doesn't convince me because the plans the evil leftists allegedly have just aren't very good. Since for this to happen it would require a long, LONG transitional period where they would be electorally vulnerable at a time where many right wing parties decided they're just done with this whole democracy concept. And while the fetish for authoritarians the right now has might have been hard to predict the long periods of electoral vulnerability were very easy to predict.

 

[Buyetyen]

For the left wing activists it's different, it's in part because of brain washing, they don't even realize how by their own standards of racism they are just like Fascists if you replace "foreigner" with "native". It's totally oblivious to them because of the constant lies and twisting of facts by the media, other activists and the political world. It's like those conspiracy theorists, to them you are the idiot/sheep because they don't see how their world view is entirely twisted by nonsense. And I think this probably represents the majority of neo-progressives. Victims of a very efficient propaganda machine.

Or maybe you could try talking to progressives and asking us what it is we actually believe and want. You won't, but you could.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

I never really found that convincing. Its hinges on the assumption that those dirty neo liberals are just up to no good for.....no reason at all. There's no real motive aside from a very vague ''self hatred'' that sounds rather cartoony and sidesteps any argument that they're making.

That and it also assumes that a more equal society is a zero sum game. That better living conditions and equal rights for minorities inherently have to come at the cost of white people.

I mean there is an argument for that in the whole "How dare white people cook certain foods / dress certain ways" or the presentation of certain things as things certain cultures should aggressively protect and not allow to be enjoyed or shared by others for some reason.

 

[Generals]

Ah yes sorry bout that. I meant neo ''progressive'' until my autocorrect decided to shame me for it and I failed to notice.



Yeah that's the cartoony self hatred argument and sidestepping of arguments that I felt wasn't convincing before. Nor does the argument of ''what if those against fascism were the real fascists after all'' impress me.

There is no "what if". By their definition they are it (after all you are very quickly a fascist nowadays). Some time ago over here in a journal there was an editorial saying "racism is in the Flemish DNA". This is by definition a racist statement but guess who was absent when it came to denouncing this disgusting generalization? The left. Because Flemish = White = Acceptable target of generalizations and hate. The right however is never absent to denounce equally disgusting generalizations of immigrants (except neo-fascists).
A lot of the shit that is being said by the left about "our society" our "culture" or "Insert your nationality" wouldn't pass by their books if you replaced "our" with "their".
The problem is that most people have to eat that shit up day after day so whenever blatant generalizations about white cultures/societies are being spewed it feels like "normal".

Migrants and especially non western migrants voting for the left doesn't really have to do with the cunning of the left. Probably more so that the right keeps implying or even directly stating that they find the migrants to be complete vermin.

You are confusing right with "far right". Although if you are living in neo progressive Fantasia everything a bit to the right of you is fascist, is that it?
I have seen very few European right wing parties treat immigrants like "vermin". Actually they treat them like adults while the left treats them like children who cannot be held accountable for their actions.
You have just shown how well the cunning attitude of the political world works.

Who else would the migrants vote for at that point? And while migrants might vote for the left due to economic reasons that's an utterly conventional affair. Migrants often end up in the lower class where they're the one who end up benefiting from left wing social programs the most. So if one party utterly detests the migrants and the other party is good for their financial prospect then its no great surprise that they would end up voting for the left.

Nono, one party hides most of its social policies while campaigning in some areas and they lie about how much other parties hates them while the other side tells them that they should integrate and that they welcome anyone who wants to be a productive integrated element of society.
And yes the left also promises free money, that also helps.

And sure. There is discomfort between the left and the migrants on some social issues. But to present this as the left being cunning implies that their(and everyone's else's) support towards demographics should be conditional rather than ideological. You seem to blame the left for not taking the stance that only good little boys and girls should receive aid rather than all those that need it. As a leftist you can disagree with a group's social stances while still taking the stance that they shouldn't be treated like vermin, that their citizenships should legally be considered just as valid as everyone else, and that they do have rights like everyone else.

Off course their support should be conditional. The left didn't spare the catholics in the past either. The influence of the church was always considered as bad and evil and catholic fundamentalists are still not appreciated by the left. You know like the christian fundamentalists in the US. Islamists however are a-ok as long as they don't blow themselves up. Standards have dropped pretty low... Again an example of the blatant neo-progressive discrimination.

And let's be quite clear the neo-left has no issue treating their ideological opponents like vermin. That's why neo-progressives tend to suffer from a weird kind of tourette syndrome that makes them yell "racist", "sexist" or "fascist" at people who dare to disagree with them, even if just slightly... as long as they are white off course. Or if they are immigrants who openly identify as (far) right, in which case they are also likely to be considered as race traitors by their communities.

The argument also doesn't convince me because the plans the evil leftists allegedly have just aren't very good. Since for this to happen it would require a long, LONG transitional period where they would be electorally vulnerable at a time where many right wing parties decided they're just done with this whole democracy concept. And while the fetish for authoritarians the right now has might have been hard to predict the long periods of electoral vulnerability were very easy to predict.

Many right wing parties are done with democracy? Trump and a couple of eastern European autocrats yes. But there are 50x times more right wing parties who aren't.
And it doesn't leave them that vulnerable as their immigrant voter base keeps on increasing and theycan count on a lot of people who have been sucked into their nonsense. This said, in some areas where people are sick and tired of being forced to believe what they see is a big right wing fascist lie the left is starting to become milder on their whole blindly pro immigration ideology.

 

[Generals]

Or maybe you could try talking to progressives and asking us what it is we actually believe and want. You won't, but you could.

I have talked to neo-progressives (I know quite a couple IRL), I have read them, I have seen them debate. And what I have seen is people who are deeply mislead or deeply misleading. I feel sad for the former and angry at the latter. It's the same way I feel about the Far Right actually.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

But that frequently isn't what's happening. The new female Iron man the internet got upset with for a few weeks wasn't the original one. She was succeeding him. Just as how Jane becoming Thor which the internet got upset about for a few weeks wasn't her becoming the original Thor.

Well lets see

Cynical attempt being played out in comics to try and extend the shelf-life of the MCU and not have to keep paying the actors more allowing them to bring in fresh talent to replace them and pay less again: Check

Creating the characters to try and be the most awesome characters ever who do no wrong and somehow are better / more powerful than the original: Check

They literally had Iron Heart become the most intelligent person in the MCU allegedly in cannon before then Moon Girl was made the most intelligent. As for Jane she gained extra powers and abilities Thor never had just cause.

No I've never quite noticed any of that. If anything they directly reference it as a path their own far right could take

No that tends to be Nazi comparisons far more.

Isn't that if not also common than at least not unheard of. To remake a movie's plot and characters but put them in a different setting. For example there was a movie about a funeral within a black family and a dwarf, and this then getting remade with white people. Or vice versa. Its not unheard of.

Except as an example Eddie Murphy's Doctor Dolittle was never pushed or sold as "At least Doctor Dolittle is black"

 

[Buyetyen]

I have talked to neo-progressives (I know quite a couple IRL), I have read them, I have seen them debate. And what I have seen is people who are deeply mislead or deeply misleading. I feel sad for the former and angry at the latter. It's the same way I feel about the Far Right actually.

And if your word had any value that would mean something. And please, don't give me that shit about how you're against the far right when you're right here making their talking points for them.

 

[Hades]

There is no "what if". By their definition they are it (after all you are very quickly a fascist nowadays). Some time ago over here in a journal there was an editorial saying "racism is in the Flemish DNA". This is by definition a racist statement but guess who was absent when it came to denouncing this disgusting generalization? The left. Because Flemish = White = Acceptable target of generalizations and hate. The right however is never absent to denounce equally disgusting generalizations of immigrants (except neo-fascists).
A lot of the shit that is being said by the left about "our society" our "culture" or "Insert your nationality" wouldn't pass by their books if you replaced "our" with "their".
The problem is that most people have to eat that shit up day after day so whenever blatant generalizations about white cultures/societies are being spewed it feels like "normal".

For this to be convincing I need more than the fringe of the fringe in order to believe that the left in general or even just the ''neo progressive'' think that race relations are a zero sum game and that the white population must be penalized. Because right now what you're saying more resembles the phrase ''if you're used to privilege than equality looks like oppression''

Besides fascism isn't a really apt comparison because those demanding social justice are missing some key characteristic. A devotion to a mythical past that never existed for instance, militarism, disregard for human rights or anti intellectualism. These days people assume fascism is about very simple things like being authoritarian or overly favoring one group but there's more to it then that.

The right however is never absent to denounce equally disgusting generalizations of immigrants (except neo-fascists).

Um. No. Whenever the right makes disgusting generalizations towards migrants then you typically hear things like ''oh he didn't mean it that way!'' or ''it wasn't that bad!'' or ''you're taking him out of context!''. Very rarely does the right concede that they crossed a line.

You are confusing right with "far right". Although if you are living in neo progressive Fantasia everything a bit to the right of you is fascist, is that it?
I have seen very few European right wing parties treat immigrants like "vermin". Actually they treat them like adults while the left treats them like children who cannot be held accountable for their actions.
You have just shown how well the cunning attitude of the political world works.

No not really. Its just that the far right is staging a very successful take over of the regular right. But indeed. I refer more to figures like Trump and Le Pen rather than Merkel and Rutte. However accusations of racism of fascism are typically not flung at Merkel or Rutte by the left.

Maybe you haven't looked hard enough? Because our own populist clown openly states he wants a white Europe and that he considers the presence of other races to be ''homeopathic dilution'' while the other one shouted on national television ''Do you want MORE or LESS Morrocans'' and after the crowd had chanted ''LESS! LESS! LESS!'' as they had been instructed to do beforehand he said he'd go arrange it. The likes of Salvini or AFD also are not particularly known for flattering remarks towards migrants to put it mildly.

Even without the orange elephant in the room its very easy to find cases of that breed of politicians being really racist.

Nono, one party hides most of its social policies while campaigning in some areas and they lie about how much other parties hates them while the other side tells them that they should integrate and that they welcome anyone who wants to be a productive integrated element of society.
And yes the left also promises free money, that also helps.

Its hardly a lie to say that the far right hates migrants. Even the far right itself is often pretty open about it and their policies don't disagree either. And of course the right says that they'll accept every migrant who integrates. But that doesn't mean they're honest about it. In fact migrants integrating isn't really rewarded very much. There was hardly a Morrocan woman more integrated than our former head of parliament yet her ethnicity still prompted resistance from the PVV. And Cruz for all his faults seems pretty well integrated yet just because his dad was Cuban he was apparently involved in Kennedy's murder. Also Obama was pretty well integrated which didn't exactly save him from accusations that he couldn't possibly be American.

Off course their support should be conditional.

No it shouldn't. That you think it is says something about you. If the left considers it their mission statement to help the lower classes and the less fortunate then they can hardly drop them like a sack of bricks just because of personal dislike. And if you want to bring up the left supposedly ditching the white working class that's not really a thing either. Their economic policies are still more beneficial to the white lower classes than those of the right.

And let's be quite clear the neo-left has no issue treating their ideological opponents like vermin. That's why neo-progressives tend to suffer from a weird kind of tourette syndrome that makes them yell "racist", "sexist" or "fascist" at people who dare to disagree with them, even if just slightly... as long as they are white off course. Or if they are immigrants who openly identify as (far) right, in which case they are also likely to be considered as race traitors by their communities.

I've already said it earlier in this post and I devoted a more lengthy post about the subject but this isn't true. The left does not seem to return the rabbit dislike that the right directs towards them. At least they don't have this dislike towards the real right wing. Merkel, Rutte, Cameron, Bush, Sarkozy are perhaps not always liked by the left but they were generally accepted and condoned. Its the candidates like Trump who get the accusations of sexism and fascism because.....of course. That's a natural consequence of the rhetoric such politicians engage in.

No. Rutte isn't typically shouted down as a rascist. No Cameron wasn't subjected to much accusations that he was a sexist and Merkel wasn't called a fasci....um okay she was but that was for being German rather than being right wing. But on the other hand. What else can we call Baudet than a sexist when he has publicly stated that a woman who refuses a man's advances just wants to be overpowered? What else can we call Wilders but a racist if he says on national television he wants to get ridd of people just for their ethnicity? Why is it controversial to call Trump a fascist when about every trait of fascism applies to him on at least some level.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No it doesn't usually take decades. At least for integration, If there is a true willingness and motivation to integrate it should go much faster. It's with every adaptation like that.
However what we see now is de-integration. It's worsening with the time passing by.
And people who continuously pretend all is fine and dandy and refuse to acknowledge any issue unless it can be blamed on the evil white guy do not help. By ignoring a problem you can't solve them. And telling immigrants all their issues are caused by the evil white guy won't motivate anyone to integrate in the evil white guy's society. That is why the left is also the first to complain whenever the right wants to push integration classes or tests. The neo-progressives don't care nor want integration, they just want to convince everyone white society is the source of all wrongs and all their fantasies are based on that.

A) You've conflating integration and assimilation. Poor people aren't exactly moving to a new place and putting themselves into ghettos intentionally. Demanding that somebody moving to a new place because of poverty and violence immediately shuck every aspect of their culture (or else) is unrealistic at best.
B) It absolutely *does* take decades, as well as considerable back and forth. The USA had to flat out invent a heroic persona and holiday for Christopher Columbus to help integrate Italian immigrants and American white people, largely because WASPs were being dicks about the situation.
C) saying that "true progressives" should be supportive of the Australian island detention facilities and proposed danish plans for Rwandan asylum camps is bugfuck crazy. Free movement of people has been a progressive ideal for longer than I've been alive, concentration camps less so.

This sort of bullshit argument is why conservatism in the US has a very hard time building non-white support from groups that, socially, are otherwise very conservative, especially religiously.

 

[Generals]

And if your word had any value that would mean something. And please, don't give me that shit about how you're against the far right when you're right here making their talking points for them.

Their talking points? I distinctly remember showing my disapproval of the likes of Donald Trump and the shit he said (since he's pretty much the only far right politician who's ever brought up here) Is that me being far right? Or is that you being the stereotype of a neo progressive who considers anyone who doesn't buy into his worldview "far right"? Sounds a lot like the latter. My words may have 0 value but I prefer that to the negative value neo progressive propaganda has.

 

[Generals]

A) You've conflating integration and assimilation. Poor people aren't exactly moving to a new place and putting themselves into ghettos intentionally. Demanding that somebody moving to a new place because of poverty and violence immediately shuck every aspect of their culture (or else) is unrealistic at best.

Funny you say that, in Denmark they are trying to break up ghettos by relocating part of its inhabitants to better neighborhoods while trying to attract middle class citizens to the ghettos. Guess who is resisting? Ghetto inhabitants who are claiming this is all racism. Yes yes, trying to get rid of ghettos is racist now.

B) It absolutely *does* take decades, as well as considerable back and forth. The USA had to flat out invent a heroic persona and holiday for Christopher Columbus to help integrate Italian immigrants and American white people, largely because WASPs were being dicks about the situation.

It absolutely doesn't. There are plenty of examples which show that. A lot of migrants integrated much faster decades ago, now it's even going backwards. And let's be quite clear, if it is that difficult and takes that long than that's a very big argument to be against mass immigration.

C) saying that "true progressives" should be supportive of the Australian island detention facilities and proposed danish plans for Rwandan asylum camps is bugfuck crazy. Free movement of people has been a progressive ideal for longer than I've been alive, concentration camps less so.

I am not saying you should be supportive of Australian detention facilities. That's entirely debatable, especially in the state they currently are in (which is why I clearly said they should have better living conditions) but true progressives should acknowledge there are a lot of problems within certain migrant communities. Problems they often pretend to care about, but apparently not that much when non-whites cause it.

What Denmark does is finally trying to solve its issue of undocumented aliens which cannot be sent back. If people who do not meet the criteria for Asylum never get in they never have to be expatriated. Do mind the facilities in Rwanda are not meant to be permanent, it's only to be used during review. Once accepted they are welcome in Denmark. I guess now "concentration camps" also got a whole new meaning.
Is it an ideal solution? No. The ideal solution would be to be able to expatriate all the undocumented aliens who do not meet any immigration or asylum criteria. But that is a world away and also something neo-progressives fight hard against.

This sort of bullshit argument is why conservatism in the US has a very hard time building non-white support from groups that, socially, are otherwise very conservative, especially religiously.

And that's why i personally dislike American conservatism.

 

[Buyetyen]

Their talking points? I distinctly remember showing my disapproval of the likes of Donald Trump and the shit he said (since he's pretty much the only far right politician who's ever brought up here) Is that me being far right? Or is that you being the stereotype of a neo progressive who considers anyone who doesn't buy into his worldview "far right"? Sounds a lot like the latter. My words may have 0 value but I prefer that to the negative value neo progressive propaganda has.

You're using their talking points about immigration and how offensive it is to your delicate white fee-fees to be taught that America was once a slaver nation. Get bent.

It absolutely doesn't. There are plenty of examples which show that.

But no matter what, you won't show us.

And that's why i personally dislike American conservatism.

You're the one making the bullshit argument. See, this is why your word is worthless, you're such a fucking liar.

 

[Chimpzy]

You're using their talking points about immigration and how offensive it is to your delicate white fee-fees to be taught that America was once a slaver nation. Get bent.

Fyi, Generals is not American. He's Flemish Belgian (as am I). Of course, here in Europe, there are very similarly themed talking points, usually originating from our own equivalent far right movements. Tho an argument could be made whether such distinctions matter much.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Combining CNN's troubles into 1 post

Chris Cuomo fired by CNN or helping his brother handle sexual abuse allegations against him

Chris Cuomo fired by CNN for helping brother Andrew fight sexual misconduct charges

Network says new ‘additional information’ has come to light about primetime anchor who was suspended on Tuesday

www.theguardian.com

Cuomo was allegedly actually fired for abuse allegations against him

CNN fires Chris Cuomo after misconduct claims

Host under investigation for helping brother Andrew weather harassment claims while New York governor

www.ft.com

A sordid BDSM ring which included the CNN producer flying out women with young daughters / adoptive daughters to his ski house.

Oh and he was also Chris Cuomo's producer

Sick world of Cuomo’s ex-CNN producer John Griffin revealed in police report

Fired CNN producer John Griffin allegedly led a perverted double life in recent months involving the “adoptive” mother of a 9-year-old girl in Henderson, Nevada, who was part of a sordi…

nypost.com

Oh and Don Lemon tipping Jussie Smollet off to the police not fully believing his story

Jussie Smollett testifies to receiving text from CNN's Don Lemon during Chicago Police attack investigation

In his trial testimony on Monday, Jussie Smollett said under oath that during the investigation, he received a text from the network’s Don Lemon — supposedly relaying information that the CPD didn’t believe his account of what happened, Fox News’ Matt Finn reported.

news.yahoo.com

 

[Generals]

You're using their talking points about immigration and how offensive it is to your delicate white fee-fees to be taught that America was once a slaver nation. Get bent.

Who said anything about US being a slaver nation or not? Have I said anything about African Americans or the history of the United States? How is that even relevant? This is not about what is being taught in American history classes or whatever you think this is about.

But no matter what, you won't show us.

Show you what? People who have quickly integrated in a country where they immigrated to?

You're the one making the bullshit argument. See, this is why your word is worthless, you're such a fucking liar.

Liar about what? That I dislike American conservatism? But I do, unlike you I dislike all conservatism tainted by religion and I don't make a distinction between White or non-white conservative nonsense. You see there is a vast world right there between the neo progressive extremists and American conservatives. You should broaden your world view and stop seeing everything in binary.

 

[Generals]

Fyi, Generals is not American. He's Flemish Belgian (as am I). Of course, here in Europe, there are very similarly themed talking points, usually originating from our own equivalent far right movements. Tho an argument could be made whether such distinctions matter much.

Somewhat correct ^^

However while talking points can be similarly themed we have the luxury of having more than two parties and associated ideologies. It's not all Far Right or Left.
And tougher immigration policies or acknowledging things didn't go as planned on that respect is hardly a far-right only theme (after all, Denmark is ruled by Socialists). The far right just has a more extreme view on it. One could mention Eric Zemour in France who wants an immigration stop, both illegal and legal.
Additionally a very important difference has to be noted and that is the "religious" aspect. A lot of European (far) right parties are not religiously conservative and only defend Christianity because it's part of the cultural heritage and national identity, but you won't ever see them cite anything from the bible.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I guess the term "pregnant women" is now offensive...

Pregnant and Recently Pregnant People

Information on COVID-19 for pregnant and recently pregnant people.

www.cdc.gov

 

[Hades]

I guess the term "pregnant women" is now offensive...

Preferment woman, pregnant person. There's hardly a difference is there? The wording isn't a big deal and no amount of fake outrage will make it so. Everyone who claims to be worked up about ''pregnant persons'' is lying and fully aware they're just quibbling over semantics.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The wording isn't a big deal and no amount of fake outrage will make it so. Everyone who claims to be worked up about ''pregnant persons'' is lying and fully aware they're just quibbling over semantics.

There's a "rationale" (for lack of a better word) behind this. "You have to be what I say you are! Do you think you're better than me?!" Some people are so utterly insecure.