Where racists and the "woke" agree...

Post Reply New Topic

It's amazing how 2 opposing sides can have so much in common.

Get a better hobby

There's nothing wrong in finding humour in the way 2 groups with very different "reasoning" both come together on putting this into practice and so end at the same place...

Spot on.

I have seen this being talked about by some breadtubers, and whoever wrote it has no idea what the "woke" position is, like they are all awful strawmen that show that anyone who believes it doesn't understand actual opinions.

I'll agree with the host of the second video: He (the host) certainly isn't funny. Any idea where I can find the "D and D" video he talked about near the start (the original, DEFINITELY not the "analysis" by that host), though, as it sounds like it might be worth watching.

As to the first video: the problem he has is that he appears to be subjectively looking at it from the inside of one group rather than the outside looking at it in an objective manner, and even having set out to try and prove the groups have nothing in common was still unable to do so.

Thankfully adblock was working, as neither seemed worthy of the ad revenue from what I saw.

I'm guessing that was Vaush?

Lucky guess...

All I can say is that humour is subjective. I won't expect you to find Thought Slime Hilarious, his humour is dry, sarcastic and self deprecating while also highly aware of social and economic issues. I am sure that to many he just comes across as weird and unfunny.

And I would honestly not like to find the video for you, since your words imply that you would follow through on believing the horrible strawman that video makes of the Left.




Don't you have that backwards? The guy doing the video saying that "woke" and racist people are the same is the one with a subjective point of view, as Vaush explains he has little understand of how the points of view are comparative, and at most is a centrist who does not understand things thinks that the "woke" believe.

Like what actual "woke" people want to make rights go backwards to be able to hire on race? It is like a complete missunderstanding of hiring quotas being in place to combat things like unconscious bias already in systems that can't be taken into account.

I genuinely believe that anyone who really believes that the beliefs of "woke" people are equivalent of a racist people, agrees with what the video portrays, has no idea what they are talking about. It is like saying; "one side discriminates on race, and the other is concerned with racial inequality, they must be the same thing." No actual "woke" person thinks people who date outside of their race is fetishizing someone on their race or self hating their own race, if you believe that you are either horribly misinformed, or built up a strawman and see the world through your own delusion.

Nope, Vaush was the one with a subjective view (I seem to recall him saying something along the lines of "we don't like them" when describing a small group of progressives who thought "white/cis people were the root of all evil", indicating a subjective opinion)


A racist - We want to employ people of a certain race for <insert reason>
"Woke" - We want to employ people of a certain race for <insert reason>

Just because the reason is "good" (or both groups have different reasons) doesn't mean that both groups aren't working towards the same goal.
Contrast that with a normal person - We want to employ the best person for the job and don't consider their race as being important.



Just because the underlying beliefs differ doesn't mean that the end results can't look (or sound) the same to an impartial observer. Take away the "justification" used to support the aims and they do approach the same end position (albeit from different directions)

As to the "No actual 'woke' person thinks..." portion of the last paragraph, do you mean that these don't exist?

Source: https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/07/sexual-desire-for-black-ppl-racist/



Fairly sure these come from the "woke" side of the discussion, and aren't "misinformation" or "strawman" (come to think of it, wasn't it inappropriate for you to assume the gender of the "strawperson" in your post, as I don't recall them actually informing you (or us) of their preferred gender/pronoun)...

What's a five letter word for accepting and acting on things for which there is no evidence?

I am confused, where does it say that people cannot date others of different races?

Just saying that some people fetishize people of other races through stereotypes, does not mean that is the majority of the cases there is no problem. Some people do fetishize certain races, like have you ever seen some probably white anime weebs who become obsessed with getting a meek and small Asian girlfriend?

All the article is talking about is warning against people who might choose their dating partner based on a fetishistic view of their race, or trying to achieve some sort of performative progressiveness, rather than liking them as a person, it is not saying that people have to stay in their race lane like the video was saying. To confuse the two would require not reading the article well enough, or a total lack of critical thinking in the point of the article.

That Alexander Leon guy, isn't he saying the opposite by calling out people who exclude dating people based on their race? About the closest thing is him saying that it is not quite the same thing if a POC chose not to date white people as to protect themselves from racism, which I don't think sounds too inclusive, but there is only so much I can say as a white person myself. Maybe he has had some bad experiences of white guys being racist towards if he gets intimate with them, like certain types white guys might pursue black men for racist fetishistic reasons, and he wants to express that a POC might choose not to be with certain people out of fear of racism rather than comiting it themselves. I don't know.

I'm sorry, I thought that there have been studies that have shown things like otherwise identical resumes got more callbacks if they happened to have a more white sounding name rather than a black one, giving clear evidence of unconscious bias based on race?

And now, having supplied a link disproving your initial claim that:

You have just acknowledged that the article proves that some do (why write an article such as that, otherwise) and are now shifting the goalposts...

It is impossible to have a reasoned discussion with a person who shifts goalposts to avoid "uncomfortable" facts which disprove their assertions, rather than accepting that maybe they were incorrect and who is then happy to revise their opinions/beliefs, so please don't expect me to reply to any of your questions\requests from this point on: While you may receive one, it is not a guarantee of a responce to any question\comment addressed to me.

I have not shifted the goal post. The goal post was set at racists and "woke" believe the same thing, which was that people who date outside of their race are bad. The argument presented was that racists believe in racial purity, and the "woke" people believe that woke people believe that it should not be done because of things like self racism or things like fetishization by race. That link proves nothing because it is only an opinion that some people may date people of other races for fetishistic reasons, it does not at all say that people should only date others of their own race.

The racist believes that White people should date only other white people. The "woke" person think it is fine for interracial relationships, with the caveat that they are not only dating them because they are a certain race, which may be connected to certain bad stereotypes that are themselves connected to racism. If you can't tell the difference between those things, then it is you who is impossible to reason with since it would require someone to either be discussing entirely in bad faith, or lack analytical abilities to tell the difference between; not seeing someone of a different race as an equal, and seeing people of different races as equal that you want them seen as a person instead of their race.

There is a big difference. Now if you want to defend your opinion, don't shift the goalpost from saying they are the same to saying they look similar if you squint your eyes and ignore the clear differences. And actually read what you link rather than just assuming that it says what you think. You have not provided any evidence yet that proves your point.

That's OK...I ventured once more into the thought-lacking, slime-filled sewer channel (again, adblocker on, incognito window to avoid being prompted by youtube to return there (no rational being deserves that)) and found enough information to locate them.


Both seemed interesting and would be useful to watch by those associated with the respective sides (I only linked the "Liberal" one above, as it seemed to be closer to the leanings of the majority on this site, and so more appropriate) as it gives an "outsiders" view of how they can be perceived, along with the way they treat (or assumptions they appear to make about) those from the "other side".

I can't actually see anything wrong in either, although I guess the closer a person associates with a given belief, the less likely they are to accept criticism of the belief, and the more defensive of their "side" they will likely become.

I did particularly like the ending of both:
"Calling someone a bigot because you disagree with their opinion is bigoted"
and
"Calling someone a facist because they have a differing opinion to your own...Is facist".