Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[tstorm823]

So for instance when a 30-year-old doctor is expected to show compassion to their elderly patient recovering from a hip replacement, it's not an expectation that the doctor age 40 years and have major surgery.

No, but it is an expectation that the doctor care about the patient's feelings on the matter.

Sure, there's all manner of variability, but in terms of general popularity, less affluent people obviously do want to make sure that there's a guaranteed minimum and provision of resources and assistance to help them progress.

Why do you think that's obvious? If we are speaking in hypothetical ideals, the ideal world would have everyone's needs met without needing any assistance from the government at all. Nobody hopes to need government assistance, and many see the existence (and scale) of government programs as an impediment to not needing them.

Take, for example, the recent suggestion by Democrats to give a certain amount of money towards home purchases. For what it's worth, I don't think this is the worst policy as it at least incentivizes something we want more of, first-time home buyers. But if you put $25,000 towards people's first homes, it's going to raise the price of every home as the market adjusts to the increase in available spending power, which will make it harder to buy a home without the government's assistance. When the government starts doing things for people, it can become difficult or impossible to do it yourself, which only increases the need for the government to step in.

I'm talking about how politicians design messages to most beneficially excite the emotional responses of voters, and why the sorts of messages left and right come out with can be very different.

And I'm telling you that the Democrats' messaging is appealing not to actual compassion, but to a sense of superiority in the minds of their voters. "If you vote for us, that means you're a better person."

 

[Agema]

No, but it is an expectation that the doctor care about the patient's feelings on the matter.

Indeed the doctor should - but what does that mean?

You are drifting into ethics and practical actions here, not feelings. Does a doctor's compassion mean that when a patient complains about his pain and wants a month's worth of oxycodone, the doctor should just prescribe it?

Why do you think that's obvious? If we are speaking in hypothetical ideals, the ideal world would have everyone's needs met without needing any assistance from the government at all. Nobody hopes to need government assistance, and many see the existence (and scale) of government programs as an impediment to not needing them.

This isn't an ideal world, so what's the point in arguing from that hypothetical? How a community builds a wall to stop the seas from eroding its town isn't usefully addressed by pointing out that the town wouldn't need a sea wall if it weren't on the coast.

And I'm telling you that the Democrats' messaging is appealing not to actual compassion, but to a sense of superiority in the minds of their voters. "If you vote for us, that means you're a better person."

You do realise that there you are mostly just expressing your own sense of superiority? Your prejudices against and resentment of your political opponents is noted, but not very interesting.

 

[Gergar12]

Let's switch the diets of 95% of Americans to that of 5% of Americans. Nothing can go wrong with that.

Note: I am mentioning the comments on this post, not the article.

In U.S., 4% Identify as Vegetarian, 1% as Vegan

Gallup finds 4% of Americans saying they are vegetarian, in terms of their eating preferences, and 1% identifying as vegan.

news.gallup.com

 

[tstorm823]

You are drifting into ethics and practical actions here, not feelings. Does a doctor's compassion mean that when a patient complains about his pain and wants a month's worth of oxycodone, the doctor should just prescribe it?

No, but that is a decision driven by higher priorities than compassion.

You do realise that there you are mostly just expressing your own sense of superiority?

Not even a little. "We're better than you" vs "You're not better than us" is not a symmetrical argument.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Let's switch the diets of 95% of Americans to that of 5% of Americans. Nothing can go wrong with that.

Note: I am mentioning the comments on this post, not the article.

In U.S., 4% Identify as Vegetarian, 1% as Vegan

Gallup finds 4% of Americans saying they are vegetarian, in terms of their eating preferences, and 1% identifying as vegan.

news.gallup.com

They really outdone themselves. They found a way to make the standard fast food combo meal even worse. The fake meat is so much worse for you than actual meat. They replaced the one healthy thing with something super ultra-processed.

 

[Trunkage]

Didn't you just recently spend a page or two claiming he helps his nephew out of care and compassion, in response to others suggesting otherwise?

I think it was the other way around

We see Trump as more humane than Tstorm

If you take a gander at what Agema wrote and you quoted he said that "The Democrats are aiming more at people who are motivated more by care and compassion", i.e. that they are going more for the parts of the electorate who feel motivated by care and compassion. No statement was made on whether the Democratic politicians themselves embody these traits.

The motivation is that they are doing something for their constituents so they vote for them

Like, it would be great if people did things out of the kindness in their heart. The whole basis of Capitalism is that is not possible so I don't know why people are pretending otherwise

 

[Trunkage]

In the last election people with lower income were more inclined to vote for Democrats. So evidently the poor people are voting for the Democrats.

Unless you're not calling the Democrats left-wing (a very reasonable position though one I would consider a bit odd coming from you).

Just so everyone is clear: Tariffs are taxes paid by the poor to benefit the rich by trying to create a monopoly. Trump used tariffs to damage poor people.

Thank the gods someone on Harris' team has realised this and is calling it out as Trump Tax. It's taken decades but we got there

 

[Trunkage]

Actually, in many ways they do want the government to offer them a hand. They want the government to ensure that they have minimums of housing, food, healthcare, and other necessities. They want the government to ensure infrastructure and safety for them and their communities to thrive, to give them opportunities via education, to protect them from exploitation. The left is lazily characterised as handouts by the right to avoid discussing what the left is often trying to do. It's about giving people a secure foundation and opportunities for people to get work and use that hard work to build themselves up. A labour union is empowering workers to represent themselves without having to get the government involved. One of the reasons the government has had to increasingly intervene directly is the success of the right at shattering the ability of workers to represent themselves effectively.

What we see with the right is all the people who work hard and don't get the fruits of their labour, because the right believes in a system where people with lots of capital and well paid accountants and lawyers get to exploit the living crap out of those who don't.

The right wants hand outs all the time. Lower taxes is a hand out. Deregulation is a hand out. Not paying for the damage they do to the environment is a hand out. Police are a hand out. Increasing interest rates shut out most people from much of the economy, allowing the rich to make bank. Fines that would cripple most people are a minor nuisance thus can be completely ignored which allow more crime. Moving to the suggested two tier tax system would just make the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer and make it almost impossible for anyone to move upwards economically. They're trying to get another hand out

 

[Agema]

Not even a little. "We're better than you" vs "You're not better than us" is not a symmetrical argument.

But you were not just arguing "You're not better than us".

The right wants hand outs all the time. Lower taxes is a hand out. Deregulation is a hand out. Not paying for the damage they do to the environment is a hand out. Police are a hand out. Increasing interest rates shut out most people from much of the economy, allowing the rich to make bank. Fines that would cripple most people are a minor nuisance thus can be completely ignored which allow more crime. Moving to the suggested two tier tax system would just make the wealthy wealthier and the poor poorer and make it almost impossible for anyone to move upwards economically. They're trying to get another hand out

I'm don't think it's necessarily useful to call lower tax a "handout". But I think it is important to note that many societal subsidies give benefits primarily to the wealthy. Mostly, I think the wealthy are busy getting the government to increase their ability to exploit others - which includes them not having to take responsibility for costs that their activities pose on wider society, e.g. pollution.

 

[Gergar12]

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[Trunkage]

I'm don't think it's necessarily useful to call lower tax a "handout".

It depends. In normal circumstances this is fine

Unfortunately, the American right hates handouts and will call anything left might use a handout. Most of these would not be called handouts in real life... But these same conservatives won't stretch the definition for similar right-wing policies.

This has not been, nor has ever been, about handouts. This situation is like when conservatives use the term woke or communism or liberal. It's just a slur that does not have to have any basis in reality

In this situation, applying the right-wing rhetoric to their policies and handing the results back shows their hypocrisy.

 

[Gergar12]

In my opinion, since words used to have meaning, but leftists in academic circles keep changing them, I get to do so as well.

imperialism is when you lose.

Imperialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Manifest Destiny is when you win.

Manifest destiny - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Agema]

snip

Manifest Destiny was a specific, conscious series of beliefs and policy decisions that underpinned American imperialism.

Imperialism is what it is, its meaning largely unchanged since inception, although there have been developments and refinements over what it entailed. However, necessarily, perceptions of imperialism have fluctuated between more or less favoured over the years, and particularly depending on whether one's people were the oppressor or the oppressed.

 

[Gergar12]

Robin Diangelo is a grifter.

 

[Schadrach]

And no one is surprised. Men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class. They can simply be ignored in other contexts, it's not like the other side is going to do any better.

​

Black Myth: Wukong became such a culture war target not because anti-SJWs wanted to latch onto it but because of reviews that were generally positive but 6 or 7/10 because of a lack of diversity. Like how they didn't really start flocking around Hogwarts Legacy until a streamer started getting threats for playing it (because not refusing to play it because JK is a TERF should be punished).

Also, the bit about Concord aged poorly, since it released 3 days before that video and is already slated for closure less than two weeks later. It failed so utterly it's kinda ridiculous. IGN gave it and Wukong the same score.

 

[BrawlMan]

Black Myth: Wukong became such a culture war target not because anti-SJWs wanted to latch onto it but because of reviews that were generally positive but 6 or 7/10 because of a lack of diversity. Like how they didn't really start flocking around Hogwarts Legacy until a streamer started getting threats for playing it (because not refusing to play it because JK is a TERF should be punished).

Most of that is bull crap. Regardless of what the reviewers did, it still doesn't change the fact that the alright and ultra conservatives latched onto it, like the parasitic leeches, they usually are and try to claim the game as their own. The game sold gang busters and is doing great across the world in China. So it doesn't matter for either side of this "culture war". Both of them can get fucked as far as I'm concerned. Especially the far right.

The storm of controversy around Black Myth: Wukong, explained

How China’s first global gaming blockbuster became a weird rallying point for the right.

www.vox.com

This article even points out how dumb and stupid it is. How either aren't relieving talking about the game play, it's story, or mechanics. Just dumb cultural war nonsense that doesn't mean anything. While everyone else normal and not having their head up their own ass are actually just enjoying the game.

As for Concord, I don't give a damn. I kept forgetting the game even existed. Sony fucked up anyway and they have learned absolutely nothing.

 

[Agema]

And no one is surprised. Men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class. They can simply be ignored in other contexts, it's not like the other side is going to do any better.

This is a fascinating comment.

One might note that historically women have done huge amounts of work which is unpaid. Housework, childcare, care of other relatives, cooking etc. All of these things are essential to good societal function, but not conventionally considered in terms of economic value. Even to this day, they are by a sizeable majority done by women, and still largely unpaid (within the family). The "tradwife" movement has been in the news a bit lately, which brings sharply into focus the idea of women effectively as unpaid domestic servants with added sexual responsibilities.

This is an interesting context to think about when you come out with statements like "men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class". One might point out that at least men got paid in the first place for their labour, which is one up on their wives.

 

[Silvanus]

This is an interesting context to think about when you come out with statements like "men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class". One might point out that at least men got paid in the first place for their labour, which is one up on their wives.

Not to mention that the architects of this tax-unbalanced system were men, as men have held the vast majority of political power for the millenia since the political system evolved. Not to mention that they remain its prime beneficiaries in other ways.

 

[Trunkage]

And no one is surprised. Men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class. They can simply be ignored in other contexts, it's not like the other side is going to do any better.

This is a fascinating comment.

One might note that historically women have done huge amounts of work which is unpaid. Housework, childcare, care of other relatives, cooking etc. All of these things are essential to good societal function, but not conventionally considered in terms of economic value. Even to this day, they are by a sizeable majority done by women, and still largely unpaid (within the family). The "tradwife" movement has been in the news a bit lately, which brings sharply into focus the idea of women effectively as unpaid domestic servants with added sexual responsibilities.

This is an interesting context to think about when you come out with statements like "men are only relevant to the degree that they are net tax payers rather than net recipients of tax money as a demographic class". One might point out that at least men got paid in the first place for their labour, which is one up on their wives.

This is a reminder that patriarchy is from hierarchy. All patriarchy is doing is placing men at the top of the hierarchy for their 'ability to work.' This is a benefit and punishment at the same time. Being able to work for money is great. It's also unfair that men had to be the bread winners as that made it seem like women could be lazy at home...

But the women in soceity did not decide that. Nor did most of the men. It was the ones on top of the hierarchy. And they are still trying to pit the sex against each other to maintain the hierarchy