All right, so it's taken me a while to respond because I needed to be more cold-headed. I was too hot-headed with my last comments.
same here, no worries m8, its a contentious topic in any case. I often need to cool down a bit aswell as this strikes somewhat personally..
I interpreted
@Hot Tuna's original comment as aimed toward the general online population that would complain about a trans person being elected or appointed for office.
Fair enough, but to follow up on my critique, its also not very chartitable towards those, I Don't think most people in general there aswell have a problem with the fact that its is trans person. They have a problem with selection procedure that seem to (undeservidly) favor X minority on the basis of identiy, rather then merrit. most people don't care what is or isn't between someone's legs. as long its competence driving the procedure, not identity.
But I could be wrong on that, it’s the case for my part at least.
Now, Rachel likely was partly responsible for the difficult decision of returning COVID patients, but she is not responsible for all the deaths. She basically had a trolley problem in her hands. Of course she's going to get flak for it.
I agree with that she was dealt a rough hand, I also don't think atragun or anyone else for that matter made the factual case that she single handidly killed them all, (and if you do manage to scoop up one, that person is an idiot and wrong) But I would make the case that she could have done better, mismagaging supplies isn’t something you can blame on Covid. The question was why was she chosen out of all candidates, if her transness (an identity that has nothing to do with her competence) wasn’t á or the reason/factor?
For instance, Kathleen Toomey, Georgia department of public health commisioner there since 2019, did and does (slightly) better then Pennsylvania in cases and deaths compartivly and also seems to have the supply chain better managed. Why not her if her track record concerning the pandemic is (albeit slighly) better? I refer to my reaction to Tuna at the top of page 5.
No, I was not saying the impact was non-existed/lesser for western men. Let's go back to
Aruna Khilanani, the psychiatrist that fantasized about killing white men. She was universally
panned across the political spectrum. Everyone knows that's not okay.
Now, take someone who preaches hatred, mocking, stigma against marginalized groups. That's kind of personality can get you a sweet deal with Fox News and even more insane alt-right groups.
well, these where your exact words: “The same can be said for minorities and women. Hatred, mocking, stigma will affect marginalized groups much more than the Western heterosexual white male.”
hence my question why you assumed that was the case. But if you don’t think that’s the case, that would lend credence to the idea that woke culture and its stigmatization does negatively impact Western heterosexual white male suicide doesn’t it? You shifting the goalpost to “yes but fox news and its hatred of minotities (which is something for another debate if you like) isn’t a rebuttal.
Are you talking about Critical Race Theory? That's not an accurate description of CRT.
yeah it actually is, if you scrape of the legalese wallpaint and pritsticked camouflage of altruism...
From the 1995 university textbook “Critical_Race_Theory_The_Key_Writings_that_Formed_the_Movement”:
(so basically CRT’s bible) These are what are (straightforwardly) described in the introduction as the shared foundations on which all variants of CTR rest. Quote:
“The first is to understand the regime of white supremacy and its subordination of people of colour, which has been created and maintained in America. And in particular to examine the relationship that the social structure and professed ideals such as The Rule of Law and Equal protection.
The second is a desire to not merely understand the vexed bond between Law and Racial power but to change it”
Notice the following two things having been presupposed here:
1 that there ís a regime of white supremacy (so pale skinned children are the oppressors and black tinted children are the victims) and
2 that CRT is a way by which that alleged thing can be allegedly overthrown.
It is a set of ideas, That seeks to convince people to view the world through the Marxist lens (which all 5 authors openly identify as coïncidently) of oppression and inequality in which one subset group (The proletariat, German people, USA citizens with dark skin) is oppressed or inhibited by another subset group (The bourgeoisie, The jewish peril, USA citizens with white skin), It shares disturbingly familiar material with the works and movements that formed the U.S.S.R, Third Reigh, Peoples republic of China, La República de Cuba etc. under a veneer of legal theory, and it openly presupposes and prostelitizes the idea of White supremacy. An idea which (but that’s my racist opinion lol) should be utterly and 100% rejected.
The difference is CRT (unfoundingly) presupposes it as a negative, whereas Hitler (unfoundingly) presupposed it as a positive.
They are however, both Race theories. Both reject the idea that all humans, regardless of their skincolour, are the same and capable óf the same. And seek to ascribe the discrepancies in (a prefered) group distribution of wealth and power to skintone, rather then for instance culture.
So when I say “race theories being suggested for basic elementary schools telling pale skinned children they're the oppressors and black skinned children they're the victims” I’m not obfuscating, but telling the truth and accurately portraying critical race theory for what it is and what it does.
Woke is that very annoying classmate that points out racism, sexism, lgbtq phobia everywhere and gets some clout on campus but that practically no one in the real world cares about.
Woke culture is the environment in which wokes are in full display, so college campuses. Woke culture occasionally pops up in the mainstream in June to celebrate LGBTQ Pride Month because corporations want to make some sweet $. Corporate America likes the concept of woke and somehow tolerates 'woke' better than right-leaning views.
I would not be considered woke at my university @jetflag, I've met way worse. One of my colleagues was straight up ostracized for supporting Trump, even though he's Hispanic/Latino. The wokest members from one particular club quite literally threatened him on twitter and doxxed him, and other members from the club followed along. I was one of the few who stood by him, and we're still friends today.
In real life, I'm much more moderate. Wouldn't really say I'm a centrist, since in the US you can't get anything done by being a centrist.
oh sure, and just to be clear I’m not “accusing” you of being woke or anything and even if you where, that be fine. (I would just fundamentally disagree with you on things like ethics, economics, virtues of fairness vs equality etc. and we could have a good ol chat about it…)
now as for what you describe as woke/woke cultures, I would say that’s a fairly innocent and surface level analysis (albeit accurate in its manifestation). And fair enough in and of itself... but in my question I was referring more to the philosophy behind it and, coming from that, the activism/policies it espouses.
So back to your example, I’m interested in why, according to you or Tuna, does that annoying classmate behave the way he she does? What is driving her to seek out problematic things left right and centre? And what policies (in relation to the biden example) can be accurately designated as falling under the Woke banner?