Where racists and the "woke" agree...

Post Reply New Topic

Similarly, I think that those that consider themselves as more "centrist" are less likely to take criticism that their "centrist" point of view that tries to equate both sides by saying that they are as bad as to be the same thing.




See, this is an attempt to say that being a bigot and being a fascist is the same thing. And the phrase of calling people a bigot for believing something different and therefore itself bigoted is a strawman built on a lack of understanding of what it means for one to be a bigot. Where conservative people take it as them allowed to having a right to hate LGBT people because that is simply having their own opinion. When it is bigoted to have a lack of acceptance for people of other sexual orientations or gender identity. Not liking being told to accept a trans person as their identified gender is not just a difference of opinions, it is wanting to be able expose someone as fake because they don't live up to your idea of what a gender is, so that you can attack their identity.

The player liberals are such awful strawmen as to be ridiculous representations of the Left. Fore example the joke about taking points from other players rolls just because ignores its in context comparison to things like historic suppression against minorities that mean people of communities have been redlined into them, easily within their grandparents lifetimes and have been severely underfunded. The joke here is saying that the redistribution is not fair, with the reasoning being that he has a feat and happened to roll lower, ignoring the actual effect that happening to be born into a race that has historically faced discrimination so that they are currently still disadvantaged is itself unfair. Within a D&D context it would be like complaining that it is unfair that all Halflings have a Lucky trait, where in the lore of D&D they have received the blessing from their goddess, Yondalla, as a means to help compensate for their small stature.

It is a complete reductive point to pretend that all "Liberals" (in the American sense) think that all conservatives are racists and sexists, a lazy strawmen assumes that the "liberals" can't think that a poor person, a black person and a generally otherwise pleasant person could not identify as conservative. I can see that a lot people on the Left understand that self identifying conservatives can largely be stuck in the world of their own experiences as they are reluctant to enact policies and social changes that can help people less fortunate than themselves in a number of different ways. For example the ending stance against restructuring existing characters and storylines to fit an agenda is lazy, especially in regards to female characters, ignores that it happens all the time with male characters, and there has been a history of female characters getting the short end of the stick. Like how those on the Right have tried to claim the Matrix red and blue pill thing, when the directors/creators both came out as transgender and have explained that the movie has themes around the transgender experience.

The videos in trying to equate the "woke" and "racist" or "Liberal" and "conservative" are themselves incredibly lazy as to show that they do not actually understand the points they are arguing against. They have to pretend that those on the Left are just waiting to call people out as sexist or racist as to win some sort of brownie points, and are equally as defendable as people who want to create ethnic states and celebrate white supremacy and the ability to discriminate based on race. It is something that does not pan out in reality when those on the Right are far more likely to commit things like violent terrorism. It shows an inability to understand nuance in a way that is unique to the center that sees discrimination and consequences of discrimination as the exact same thing. Incredibly silly.

Not sure what you're trying to say here...Maybe an example (with evidence to support the claims) may be in order?






To call another person a bigot, simply because you disagree with them, is bigotry. Similarly, calling someone a facist because you dislike what they say or believe is a form\element of facism.

Being able to articulate what is wrong with their opinion\belief, however, shows that the accuser may not be bigoted\facist.

For example (using an example that you may understand), because a person states that trans people should use the bathrooms for the sex they were born does not make them a bigot, becasue you have no evidence to support the requisite requirement that they are "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion".

Even following a discussion, where both sides "agree to disagree" without changing their opinion, this would not indicate either side was a bigot (or bigoted) - As long as each side is happy to accept that the other has valid views (even if "misguided"), and does not seek to impose their views on the other, there is no bigotry, simply a polite disagreement. However, should one party be unable to accept the other sides right to an opinion which differs from their own, that would make this party a bigot (or indicate bigotry on their part).

However, the opinion that trans person should use the bathroom of their gender assigned at birth, implies that you do not agree that you do not think that they are their identified gender, being intolerant of a person being able to have hold a different opinion to your own that they might have a better opinion of their gender and thus what toilet they should use than the transphobe's opinion of birth sex matches gender. The person who should be the most knowledgeable of their gender and thus what bathroom they should use is themselves, thus there is implicit bigotry in not agreeing with a trans person's assessment.

If the reasoning is that toilets should be based on birth sex outside of one's gender, that you would still think that way while recognising them as their identified gender, then that person needs to prove that bathrooms are based on birth sex and not gender, which I have not yet heard a compelling argument. Since bathrooms are much more relevant in the social sense that gender exists in rather than if at one time their body leaned more towards being potentially capable of producing sperm or an egg, the "more likely" and "Potentially" thing is important when taking into consideration to things like intersex people and those who may have been born infertile or not yet reached that point.

While generally it should be up to the accusing party to prove an accusation, such as bigotry, it should be up to the one accused of being a bigot to prove the other person is not their identified gender or why bathrooms do not function on gender. Otherwise their belief that people identifying as transgender should not use the bathroom they identify as is evidence enough to be called a bigot. Do you have a rebuttal to this logic?

As previously stated:


But, yes, I do have a rebuttal.

Care to share with the rest of the class, or would you rather pretend that I am acting in bad faith?

Nope...And I don't believe there's any pretending involved either, but that's based on my past observations and interactions (both obviously subjective) and so there is the faint possibility I could be incorrect.

Have a nice evening.

So you can't actually prove that a person who thinks trans people cannot use the bathroom matching the gender they identify as, is doing for any reason other than that they are intolerant of other people holding a different opinion, that being of their gender? This was your own example of people calling others bigots are themselves bigots.

Looks like my win.

I think that a lot of times the sort of people that make these sorts of both sides arguments, especially as humour, trying to equate the Leftists or "woke" to racists and the far right, are themselves trying to cover for their own opinions that match the more Far Right side. Like if one can say that if being comfortably racist is the same as people trying to combat that sort of thing, then there is nothing wrong with holding those more racist opinions, or pretend that there is no problem at all. Because if one can say that trying to help a certain minority is just as crazy as trying to ridiculously slide back and discriminate, then doing absolutely nothing seems like the more sane option.

As another example if you take open gay bashing of queer people in a movie, that is treating them with total resent and like predators, and have it compared to giving equal opportunity of homosexual relationships in movies as straight relationships, you can pretend that equality homosexual pairings is equally crazy as them being stereotypical predators or monsters. Which means one can convince themselves that having no more than token gay characters and no homosexual pairings is somehow the sane normal. Maybe create excuses like pointing to times that those on the Left criticised only fetishized or discriminatory versions queer representations as not okay, and saying that it is the exact same thing as people who don't want any queer representation. Saying that Leftists who do not want bad queer representation are the same thing as homophobes who don't want any queer representation, missing the nuance that there is a big difference in intention and desired outcome.

Did I state that I couldn't prove anything?

Let's check:


So we have one misrepresentation already: I CAN prove something, I just CHOOSE not to share with you, however.

As you may have noticed, at least twice in the past I have informed you that I shall only respond to you if\when I wish, not at your beck-and-call, as I have a limit on how often I particiapte in a debate with a person who misrepresents what I say or moves goal-posts when the information supplied counters their claims.



No, you don't "win"...On the plus side, think of it as an opportunity supplied to you where you don't lose, though.

(Claiming a "win", when the other person has stated on multiple occasions that they will only respond to you if\when they wish, purely because they didn't repspond, could equally be considered an example of the "acting in bad faith" mentioned in an earlier post by yourself, too, BTW.)

Saying that you can prove something does not mean that you can. I could say that I have evidence of the Easter Bunny and I just don't want to share it, does not mean that the question of if the Easter Bunny is real is still up in the air. You created the example saying that it was something that I could understand, and when I deconstructed it you claimed stalemate by saying that you have an answer and accused me of moving goalposts.

What goalposts did I move? Or is that a secret too? It is rather lazy to make such accusations without anything to back it up.

To save you the trouble of remembering posts from less than 24 hours ago, here's a recent example:

Responce:
Links https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/07/sexual-desire-for-black-ppl-racist/
Written by a self described "queer, cis Black woman" and which includes such "illuminating" sections as:

Reaction:


So, You made a ABSOLUTE statement "No actual 'woke' person thinks..." which contained no mention of anything saying people couldn't date others of different race, evidence demonstrating the falsity of this was supplied (Why would a "woke" person feel the need to write something like that, or their publication publish it, unless some DO believe that, too?), and instead of acknowledging where you had been shown to be incorrect you moved to a "where does it say something I never asked about or addressed in my initial statement" with a "Just because... does not mean..." added.

At that stage, why would anyone expect a rational debate when they could see that regardless of what information they supplied it would be ignored in an attempt to reframe the debate away from details that did not suit your beliefs\worldview?

So, as a result, why would they ever wish to converse with you, outside of their own terms?

I am still confused. I said that no actual "woke" person thinks that people who are dating outside of their race are doing it are as standard doing it for fetishistic reasons, that is not the same thing as saying that "woke" people don't think that people might date people of other races for fetishistic reasons. The example from the video that this discussion is about creates the strawman saying that he thinks people should only date within their race, of which I made the absolute statement around. The link you provided was of a "woke" person saying that some people do date for fetishistic reasons.

I did not move the goal post because the goal post was that "woke" people are the same by saying they don't want race mixing, it was actually you who moved the goal post by bringing in someone saying that fetishizing by race does happen. Perhaps you read my statement incorrectly, but I never said that race fetishizing does not happen, my statement was in regards to all people (or relationships) involving mixed races have race fetishizing. It would be kind of like if I said that people can't breathe under water, and you then provided a link that showed that people can breathe under water with an air tank, you are going after the semantics of the words, while ignoring the meaning. While technically a person could find a way to breathe while under water, but you should understand what I meant was that people can't breathe water.

I hope that you can see the difference between the portrayal in the video and what is talked about in that link, because the video acts like the "woke" person wants to ban interracial dating, the obvious opinion to share with the racist. While that everydayfeminism.com link is warning of the possibility that someone might choose to target someone of another race for dishonest reasons, not that everyone should stop interracial dating because it is a possibility. A clear difference, in fact they are opposed, since the video example says that people should date based on race, while the link example says that people should not date on race so much as questioning the motives of some people who date interracially.

I hate having to do this, as I can see this isn't getting through to you, but let me break your statement down:


We'll start with:
1) "No actual 'woke' person" - Here we have a simple ABSOLUTE statement, which requires merely a single example to disprove it in its entireity.
2) "thinks people who date outside of their race is fetishizing someone on their race"
"or"
3) "self hating their own race" - Here we have 2 alternative statements, of which only one needs to be addressed (through use of "or" to separate the conditions) in order to disprove the statement

You then follow up with additional commentry\accusations against those who disagree with your assertion which can be nullified by any evidence presented which contradicts the preceeding requirements:
"if you believe that you are either horribly misinformed, or built up a strawman and see the world through your own delusion.".

Clear? Nothing has been added or removed from your statement\assertion, it has merely divided into sections to be addressed as required...

Having shown that
2) There are some who do believe that people can date others outside their race for "fetish" reasons" through the use of the linked article
and that
1) this belief is held by some "woke" people such as the author,
the statement (as made by yourself) has been disproven (point 3 did not need to be addressed as only one of points 2 and 3 were required). The assertions\accusations at the end of the statement are therefore also nullified.

The fact that you cannot understand this simple logic is exceedingly depressing, and demonstrates how having a rational debate with you is unlikely to be possible.



I have presented you several times with a DIRECT QUOTE of what I was addressing (the goal posts you supplied), and what you typed here is not that...Compare this claim with the actual statement\assertion you made which was being addressed.



No, it wasn't. Your statement as quoted back to you on multiple occasions was that no 'woke' person thinks that it occurs, not that it does not happen...

I hope that one day that you will understand all this, but I am doubtful as to whether that time will come, based on past experience.

"There are some who do believe that people can date others outside their race for "fetish" reasons"
Does not contradict
"No actual "woke" person thinks people who date outside of their race is fetishizing someone on their race"

How the goddamn do you not understand that? Look at the grammar of what I said; I said "people who date outside their race is fetishizing", that is assigning judgement to the general group of people who date interracially, not specific instances of it "can" or could be a case, otherwise I would have said:
"No actual "woke" person thinks a person who date outside of their race might be fetishizing someone on their race"
or
"No actual "woke" person thinks people who date outside of their race can be fetishizing someone on their race"

I said "is", I did not use "might be" or "can be", which would have made my statement be contradicted by a "woke" person saying that someone could be dating interracially for fetish reasons. The statement in the "comedy" video that this discussion is around said that the woke position is that someone "is" dating for fetish reasons.

These are very distinct differences in language, like looking at a mug without seeing the contents; one person saying that there is coffee inside of the mug, and another person saying that there could be coffee inside of the mug. Taking the analogy even further, it would be like one person saying that all mugs have coffee inside of them, and another person saying that mugs can have coffee inside of them. My statement was along the lines of saying "No actual "woke" person thinks the contents of a mug is coffee" in relation to racists who do believe that all mugs have coffee inside of it (they don't want any interracial relations), after all a "woke" person believes there could be nothing inside of a mug. And you came at me with a link from a "woke" person saying something like "many mugs have coffee inside of them, a person might think that it is chocolate milk but it is actually a mocha which means it has caffeine and is thus coffee". It does not contradict my statement saying that woke people don't believe all contents of mugs are coffee.

I would think that it is pretty clear that my intention was saying that no actual woke person thinks that all interracial couples are for fetishistic reasons, it was why I used the definitive "is", the word being a synonym of "all". I apologize if you misread my statement, and thought that "people who" is also equivalent of "people can".

Realising there are people so "invested" in their side that they cannot look at the original video in an objective way (or have a debate without moving the goal-posts), I was thinking about going through every few days and picking one comparrison to explain to them in simple terms (I didn't want to cause too much stress on those people by proving too many assertions within the original video corrrect in one go).

As such, I ventured back to that Vaush one (the other, sludge one, isn't worth anyone's time: I believe his "comedy" comes through laughing at the presenter, not what they try to present, and there is no attempt at even a minimal level of objectivity on the channel, from what I can see), and found a remarkable lack of awareness in it for even a simple comparrison.

Take the following:
"Woke" term - "People of colour"

"Racist" term (assuming from a "white" racist) - "Coloured people"


According to Vaush, these 2 terms have nothing in common, yet objectively both terms appear to include the same people, exclude the same people, and so (if removing connotations assocated with either of them) are interchangeable - replace one term with the other and you would not be changing the subset of the human race who were being referred to in the conversation.

The fact that he was unable to see any similarity between them shows a high degree of subjectivity, making any possibility of objective reasoning from him almost non existant.

I'm not sure if it is worth going through others in the same way...Maybe when I have time I'll pick another for objective comparrison.

Brictoria, in the realworld it's like this

A racist - We prefer employing Australian qualified candidates (code for white Aussies)
A "woke" - We have are proud of our diverse workforce

When sorting applicants for a job
A racist - throw out anybody who has an ethnic name
A "woke" - I don't want female applicants who are going to fleece us for maternity leave or people who can't speak English

Outcome - same, except the woke boss also doesn't hire women either

Reminds me of The Dixie Chicks changing their name to 'The Chicks', because clearly it's better to have a girl band named after a derogatory term for women as long as it does not contain a reference to the racist South. (because being proud of anything having to do with the South makes you racist now apparently )