Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[Gergar12]

Peh, sounds like your white fragility is showing.

They are awful books. They don't define what racism is, Ibram X Kendi actually does, and while not all policies of his are doable, he is a vastly more honest actor than Robin De Karen.

Also, I am not white.

 

[Hawki]

Also, I am not white.

Checks list...

Internalized whiteness?

White adjacent?

Decolonize your mind?

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm being sarcastic, and I've read White Fragility myself. My review should be in the depths of the "what are you reading?" thread.

 

[Seanchaidh]

White Fragility was written by someone who admitted to ignoring economic elements of systemic racism because she works as a corporate consultant. That doesn't mean she's wrong about her central theses (which I'm actually not all too familiar with not having read her work), but it does mean they are incomplete.

You obviously don't have the education to know what nuclear deterrence and MAD are.

Uh...

Nuclear deterrence is more fragile the less time there is to react to a launch because it makes false positives result in the end of the world rather than an (already hasty) examination of whether that flock of seagulls is actually the comprehensive nuclear launch your radar operator thought it was. And guess what element relates rate to time? That's right, distance. distance over rate = time. Very fast nuclear missiles have been rightly regarded as an existential threat to humanity and so were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Both speed and distance. Putting aggressive nuclear missile placements next to countries with gigantic nuclear arsenals is a recipe for ending the world. And if you don't understand that and how fragile reliance on the threat of mutually assured destruction truly is, it is very good you're nowhere near power.

 

[Gergar12]

White Fragility was written by someone who admitted to ignoring economic elements of systemic racism because she works as a corporate consultant. That doesn't mean she's wrong about her central theses (which I'm actually not all too familiar with not having read her work), but it does mean they are incomplete.



Uh...

Nuclear deterrence is more fragile the less time there is to react to a launch because it makes false positives result in the end of the world rather than an (already hasty) examination of whether that flock of seagulls is actually the comprehensive nuclear launch your radar operator thought it was. And guess what element relates rate to time? That's right, distance. distance over rate = time. Very fast nuclear missiles have been rightly regarded as an existential threat to humanity and so were Soviet missiles in Cuba. Both speed and distance. Putting aggressive nuclear missile placements next to countries with gigantic nuclear arsenals is a recipe for ending the world. And if you don't understand that and how fragile reliance on the threat of mutually assured destruction truly is, it is very good you're nowhere near power.

You are missing a lot in your analysis, for one it's awfully risk-averse, and two I would rather live in a world where getting run over by a tank is not an option over a world that has aggressive leaders who invade democracies over, and over again.

And the world only ends if there is tension, don't invade Tawian, Ukraine, and Europe, or else mad man theory goes into play, and the outcome is unpredictable.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You are missing a lot in your analysis, for one it's awfully risk-averse, and two I would rather live in a world where getting run over by a tank is not an option over a world that has aggressive leaders who invade democracies over, and over again.

And the world only ends if there is tension, don't invade Tawian, Ukraine, and Europe, or else mad man theory goes into play, and the outcome is unpredictable.

NATO was called in via Article 4 against Afghanistan in response to actions across the world by non-state actors. Weapons stationed in Ukraine could hit Moscow in five minutes or less. Your idea of a successful geopolitics is basically suicidal.

 

[Gergar12]

NATO was called in via Article 4 against Afghanistan in response to actions across the world by non-state actors. Weapons stationed in Ukraine could hit Moscow in five minutes or less. Your idea of a successful geopolitics is basically suicidal.

And yours is appeasement.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And yours is appeasement.

No, in fact, my idea removes the operative rationale for the war in Ukraine before it begins and cedes no territory.

Just face it, self-proclaimed foreign policy "realist":

1)a situation in which the two largest nuclear arsenals have a bunch of hostile launch platforms near one or the other is an existential threat to life on earth from the simple possibility of error alone, not to mention the temptation of an idea like the preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union attributed to Barry Goldwater.
2)conferring a NATO article 4 or 5 guarantee on a place that could be host to such a set of hostile launch platforms is, from the standpoint of the encroached upon nuclear power, as good as putting the launch platforms there because once that guarantee is in place interfering with the placement of launch platforms also results in a nuclear exchange or the abeyance of the treaties that govern NATO. Trusting adversaries to let their treaties fall into abeyance in order to save the world on short notice is silly.
3)#1 and #2 both being untenable situations for both the encroached upon nation with a vast nuclear arsenal and the existence of humanity as a whole, the threat of extending NATO membership to a country on the border of a giant nuclear power designated hostile is as good as threatening world suicide.
4)If the military alliance that is threatening world suicide refuses to negotiate terms to step back from the brink, then what is there to be done? How is it acceptable to expect a country to face that choice and make the decision that seems to march inexorably toward the end of the world assuming NATO keeps acting in the same way?
5)The prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine without guarantees related to the security of Russia is a suicide pill for the entire world and that takes precedence over Ukraine's freedom to be a belligerent idiot joining a gang of other belligerent idiots.

You can have a global system based on nuclear deterrence or you can have a global system in which smaller nations everywhere can justifiably have full diplomatic and military freedom of association. Pick one because you cannot have both.

 

[Gergar12]

No, in fact, my idea removes the operative rationale for the war in Ukraine before it begins and cedes no territory.

Just face it, self-proclaimed foreign policy "realist":

1)a situation in which the two largest nuclear arsenals have a bunch of hostile launch platforms near one or the other is an existential threat to life on earth from the simple possibility of error alone, not to mention the temptation of an idea like the preemptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union attributed to Barry Goldwater.
2)conferring a NATO article 4 or 5 guarantee on a place that could be host to such a set of hostile launch platforms is, from the standpoint of the encroached upon nuclear power, as good as putting the launch platforms there because once that guarantee is in place interfering with the placement of launch platforms also results in a nuclear exchange or the abeyance of the treaties that govern NATO. Trusting adversaries to let their treaties fall into abeyance in order to save the world on short notice is silly.
3)#1 and #2 both being untenable situations for both the encroached upon nation with a vast nuclear arsenal and the existence of humanity as a whole, the threat of extending NATO membership to a country on the border of a giant nuclear power designated hostile is as good as threatening world suicide.
4)If the military alliance that is threatening world suicide refuses to negotiate terms to step back from the brink, then what is there to be done? How is it acceptable to expect a country to face that choice and make the decision that seems to march inexorably toward the end of the world assuming NATO keeps acting in the same way?
5)The prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine without guarantees related to the security of Russia is a suicide pill for the entire world and that takes precedence over Ukraine's freedom to be a belligerent idiot joining a gang of other belligerent idiots.

You can have a global system based on nuclear deterrence or you can have a global system in which smaller nations everywhere can justifiably have full diplomatic and military freedom of association. Pick one because you cannot have both.

Someone is angry, did I hurt your feelings for being Putin's spokesman in this forum.

 

[tstorm823]

No, in fact, my idea removes the operative rationale for the war in Ukraine before it begins and cedes no territory.

Your idea is the dumbest thing ever said on the forum, honestly. You're arguing that the issue is that Russia needs a buffer state between it and NATO to feel safe. Estonia and Latvia joined NATO almost 20 years ago, but lets ignore that. Russia invading Ukraine doesn't make a border state between it and NATO, it erases it. Ukraine was sitting between Russian military operations and NATO, and now it isn't, because Russian military operations are in Ukraine, which borders NATO. They did the thing you're arguing against to themselves on purpose.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Someone is angry, did I hurt your feelings for being Putin's spokesman in this forum.

?

You're arguing that the issue is that Russia needs a buffer state

not precisely, but whatever, we'll go with that for now

Russia invading Ukraine doesn't make a border state between it and NATO, it erases it.

Even if we assume Putin aims to maintain possession of the Ukraine, none of that makes Moscow or any other part of Russia move closer to anywhere else, so congrats, you ignored a completely reasonable criticism (that Latvia and Estonia are already NATO members bordering Russia) in order to make an objection that is breathtakingly asinine.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

K, so you have been offended, then.



So you don't find (for instance) extreme racist language objectionable at all? Actual slander? Death threats?

Stephen Fry's quote is not about getting punched in the face. I'll get upset about people actually doing racist things, not using racist language. I'll get upset if society or the community shares the same sentiments. I'm Polish and Nazis killed a lot of Polish people, I'm not going to be offended by some random dude spouting Nazi bullshit or someone just using the word Nazi.

Some dude just saying stuff to me isn't slander. Slander is something being done publicly to cause actual harm to someone else. There's obviously a point when you get to verbal abuse when someone keeps harassing you after you walked away, nobody is saying harassment or threats isn't a thing or is a "whine" or shouldn't be respected. That's not what the discussion is about.

 

[Silvanus]

Stephen Fry's quote is not about getting punched in the face. I'll get upset about people actually doing racist things, not using racist language. I'll get upset if society or the community shares the same sentiments. I'm Polish and Nazis killed a lot of Polish people, I'm not going to be offended by some random dude spouting Nazi bullshit or someone just using the word Nazi.

Some dude just saying stuff to me isn't slander. Slander is something being done publicly to cause actual harm to someone else. There's obviously a point when you get to verbal abuse when someone keeps harassing you after you walked away, nobody is saying harassment or threats isn't a thing or is a "whine" or shouldn't be respected. That's not what the discussion is about.

The discussion is about your claim that nothing has ever offended you in your life. Which, yes, would include things like verbal abuse, extreme racism, slander (lying about somebody, public defamation).

 

[Trunkage]

The discussion is about your claim that nothing has ever offended you in your life. Which, yes, would include things like verbal abuse, extreme racism, slander (lying about somebody, public defamation).

Funnily enough, black stereotypes were and are yelled at black folks. Black stereotypes being LIES perpetuated by certain demographics

I'd also point out that those words are then used by other people to justify actions. If you want to see that in action, go have a look at Alex Jones and Sandy Hook. He never did a single action against them. But many of his followers followed his suggestion.

So, yes. Words can very much harm you

 

[thebobmaster]

Words, I'd argue, can do more lasting damage than physical attacks. Just ask anyone who's grown up in a verbally abusive household how much it can fuck with your well-being.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'll get upset about people actually doing racist things, not using racist language.

Because racist language... isn't a racist... thing?!

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Something new for from woke world

https://archive.fo/0PNpi

Elden Ring is problematic because it lacks 'kinky' black hairstyles and 'baby hair' options.

This is despite the author admitting it does have multiple options including in the authors words options like an braids and Afros but those are 'Straight' hairstyles.

 

[Trunkage]

Because racist language... isn't a racist... thing?!

Free Speech, bro. You aren't allowed to get any feeling from any racist language. If you do, you're the real racist bad guy. And that's definitely not authoritarian. Somehow

Dont worry about that anti-CRT thing. We definitely didn't say that we think CRT is racist

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The discussion is about your claim that nothing has ever offended you in your life. Which, yes, would include things like verbal abuse, extreme racism, slander (lying about somebody, public defamation).

Nope, I came in saying Stephen Fry's quote is right, which had nothing to do with any of your claims.

Because racist language... isn't a racist... thing?!

You can use racist words without being racist. You can do black face without being racist (Tropic Thunder). If someone is doing something racist that does actual harm to you, there's a law against that and you can sue. If something is not actually harming me or others, why am I going to get "offended" over it and choose to have a less content day because of it? Last week at work, we went to a breakfast place for lunch that had on the menu an "Oriental breakfast" (just breakfast food over rice) and we mainly just joked about it saying "isn't this problematic in 2022?". We joked because we know the restaurant isn't obviously racist against asians or anything, but because we know there's someone that would get all offended by it and make a big deal out of it. Someone saying that they have the "itis" after a big meal is rooted completely in racism but is no longer used as racist language, yet that is something somebody can take offense to and for what?

 

[Silvanus]

Nope, I came in saying Stephen Fry's quote is right, which had nothing to do with any of your claims.

Then you said you had never been offended by anything in your life.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You can use racist words without being racist. You can do black face without being racist (Tropic Thunder). If someone is doing something racist that does actual harm to you, there's a law against that and you can sue. If something is not actually harming me or others, why am I going to get "offended" over it and choose to have a less content day because of it?

Yet those words would still be racist and perceived as racist, especially by those who those words are meant discriminate against. And I know this might sound like an after school special, but I guess it's necessary to say; Words have impact. Bullying isn't just physically beating someone up. The word 'fatty' is pretty harmless on its own, but if you're called that day in and day out, at school or at work, it's going to have an impact on you. But then I guess everyone calling you that could just say 'Hey, come on, I don't mean that as an insult, it's cuz I like you' and it wouldn't matter?

What if someone put a burning cross on the lawn of a black family? Is that actual racist harm being done, or is it just some burning timber and the family in question really shouldn't be offended by it? What is actual racist harm in your mind; physical violence that is racially motivated? By your reasoning shouldn't the racial motivation not mean anything to the victim, only the beating? If you feel that there is no such thing as offending, then racism by these standards doesn't exist at all, since all it would entail is one group of people being perceived as lesser by another, and why would the former group care and have a less content day then, right?