What's on your mind?
- Thread starter Goker
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Nega-Brutus
Where's the lie
You are basically assuming that racism itself doesn't exist at this point. "Quotas would work if there was no resentment towards the people we are forcing companies to hire".
Forcing policies on people only works when it has no real impact on their lives. Back in 2000, literally everyone was homophobic. Now very few people in Europe or America are. I think gay marriage has a lot to do with this, but at the same time almost nobody really had any reason to care one way or the other.
Employment on the other hand is a big deal. Imagine being white and unemployed, and every time you apply for a job, not knowing whether you were passed over for an underqualified black person. This may seem like an extreme but I guarantee you this fear is the basis of most of the open racism in The West: the idea that the government is giving benefits to people based on skin colour. No amount of "actually it's for X or Y statistical reason" is going to un-piss-off someone who has just lost a job.
There is none
We'll have equality and certainty when we all loose our jobs to robots.
Just a note from people born before 2000: the homo acceptance was a result of vigorous activism and promotion in entertainment starting in the late 80s, the HIV years. Back in 2000 a lot of people were converted already after a decade of gay activism.
Activism works and anti-racist activism works too, it just doesn't do overnight and possibly in a middle of economic turmoil, where fears about the future make people more tribal. That doesn't mean we need to give poor whitey a break, activism needs continuity.
If someone believes that they were passed over just because of potential preferential treatment given to x or y category of person, then such a person is going to be terminally bitter, but it wouldn't occur to most people to even consider it unless they habituated websites that bombarded them with propaganda about the idea. Besides, it's not about giving underqualified or less qualified people of a particular group preference over the majority, is it? They have to be qualified for the job or position to stand a chance in the first place. I don't doubt that some people might believe otherwise, if that's what you meant, but the existence of such people is no reason not to pursue any given policy.
This isn't true, Noam Chomsky. Propaganda isn't a 1-way laser beam directly into the brain. People reach these kinds of conclusions on their own. I've heard my own (black, immigrant) grandparents say stuff about how modern immigrants get more benefits than they ever did, and they don't read newspapers or use the internet. It's just what people end up thinking when they see others doing better than them, especially if the state is involved. Why is the state giving these people a hand up and not me?
Do you really think that we could eliminate racial economic grievances if there was no mass media?
Do you think the opposite is true, that you can create opinions from thin air just by bombarding people with propaganda? If that's the case why do so many people in America believe conspiracy theories, when their "strength" is so much narrower than the mainstream mass media?
The problem is that the people you're describing are the people on the ground implementing the policy in the first place. The state doesn't just slip a hidden negro under the rug when nobody's looking, and then the next day HR comes into the office and is like "oh chris' linda, issa wog! Le's pu' 'er t'werk". What happens instead is that they will get a letter saying that there are concerns about their employment practices, please do something about it before X date. Then they laugh at the letter between themselves, gossip a lot, and then individually and prematurely hate the person before they've arrived. The experience sucks for everyone.
I really don't think modern Activism (with a capital A) does very much. Most people think they're cringe and that their methods are cringe, even if they agree on the principles. Whenever activists block a road or whatever, the press berates them and normal people beat them up. Back in the 00s in the UK there was an MRA group that did a bunch of stunts in parliament, but if you bring them up now people just cringe, even other MRAs. Similarly a bunch of XR people jumped on trains last year and got mullered by normie proles, even though almost everyone supports them in principle. Your average person sees them as annoying, self important twats trying to tell people how to think. See also Greta Thunberg.
You can just say "those people aren't educated on the facts enough / they work against their own class / social interests" or whatever, because you know you're right and they're wrong, but at that point it's not a mass movement, it's a vanguardist troll larp designed to piss people off.
I think six weeks is too short a notice. Twelve to fifteen makes more sense to me. The law seems unconstitutional at face value, but there might be some subtleties in the wording of Roe v Wade, that I am not aware of, that will allow them to get away with it even if SC doesn't overturn Roe, or doesn't "modify" it like they did in PP v Casey) . The latter is quite possible given the current composition of the court.
Nooooo, you have to be an incoherent schizo randomly spouting different gibberish crap every day. Otherwise you are a totally predictable, brainwashed drone!!!!
Last edited:
You know what's wrong with young people? This and how they are protected to say stupid things by the hard left identity police.
Now, it's normal that in certain years you may be confused by your sexuality, and you should be able to sort it out by your early twenties, one way or another. But encouraging young people to acquire silly labels as some badges of wokeness, and disallowing criticism of it, is counter-productive for their development, as they are encouraged to indulge in their current issues and not deal with them.
(The quote itself is from a Guardian Agony Aunt column. Comments are usually enabled and heavily moderated, but this time they know they are pushing it, so comments are disabled for this one.)
A similar situation to this is with young radical leftists who choose which far left faction they belong to from the many on the fractured far left (i.e. anarcho syndicalist, etc.) - just because they are in search for an identity. We had a forumite here who used to earnestly post threads like "what is your far left horoscope sign" (paraphrased... was it Dodes?).
Luckily, this kind of confusion CAN be criticized and ridiculed as a corrective, but confusion with sexuality is apparently off limits.
I'm curious to see what's the take of the local PC Officer @Antoine de Saint-Exupéry , as our only liaison to the brave new world of artificial pronouns.
Note that I'm not against adults (>25) claiming a specific sexuality, the problem is with younger people who are likely merely confused in their vulnerable years and will change their minds several times until adulthood.
Last edited:
the kid's 16, who gives a ****? what she identifies as is immaterial and affects nothing, no need to harp on her for it.
of course, "encouraged to indulge [...] and not deal with them" coming from these folks is just eliminationist rhetoric. they want these identities to not exist in the first place. bit of a red flag, that.
it would seem to me that puzzling through various identities and figuring out how they apply to you and you to them is dealing with the "issues".
of course, "encouraged to indulge [...] and not deal with them" coming from these folks is just eliminationist rhetoric. they want these identities to not exist in the first place. bit of a red flag, that.
the problem? why is it a problem? so let them change their minds. people change their minds on lots of things all the time. it doesn't affect you.
Some valid points there, thanks.
I have no concerns with what do they do in private and what do they say to their friends and parents though, that would be meddling.
I think a healthier way would be to tell teenagers to avoid assuming identities (and annoyingly posture with them) and to be open-minded about their sexuality until they really figure it out. (or "being fluid" in gender identity code)
And above all avoid using arcane gender newspeak that is obviously not meant for clear communication ("non-male loving non-male"). I appreciate that the gender identity crowd wants to be inclusive of non-binaries, but their awkward language constructs won't be mainstreamed ever and only serve to alienate non-believers, as well as provide ready made propaganda for conservatives (I know this first hand).
A valid point in principle, as I have no stake in this, but I'm still allowed to comment on it. Besides, it would affect me once a young person comes over and insists on its pronouns. Or does that in a public forum and I'm part of it.
I have no concerns with what do they do in private and what do they say to their friends and parents though, that would be meddling.
Is this really a constructive way to handle personal issues with sexuality? It seems that choosing a gender identity sets a defined role with some boundaries that may prevent exploration.
I think a healthier way would be to tell teenagers to avoid assuming identities (and annoyingly posture with them) and to be open-minded about their sexuality until they really figure it out. (or "being fluid" in gender identity code)
And above all avoid using arcane gender newspeak that is obviously not meant for clear communication ("non-male loving non-male"). I appreciate that the gender identity crowd wants to be inclusive of non-binaries, but their awkward language constructs won't be mainstreamed ever and only serve to alienate non-believers, as well as provide ready made propaganda for conservatives (I know this first hand).
i can tell
>mfw culture wars
Snarky is low effort.
My motivation for trying to figure this out is that we leftist moderates could lose elections catering to Twitter "progressives" who only care about identity politics, because that's how you estrange the center ground. Regular voters frankly don't care about gender identities, but they could be mobilized against the left if the left indulges the progressives too much, or appear to. The leftist youth invested in gender politics won't turn up to vote anyway, so there's no great loss there anyway.
What I would like to see on the far left is that they reign in their more outlandish ideas themselves and determine what's really necessary and what's merely self-indulgent moralistic posturing. Snarky superiority won't win you anything except new enemies.
Edit: since I'm already ranting, here's one more irritating thing. It appears that "asking for consent" is a new cool phrase on the hard left and they use it for everything, even trivial things. I think it's creepy, as every time you need to figure out if they are asking to get you drunk and have sex with you.
Last edited:
you're not going to "figure it out" on the sword game forum and neither is anyone else. putting effort in there is a waste of that effort.
and talking to me about centrist electoral strategy is doubly wasted effort. both because neither you nor i nor anyone who will ever read this will ever make a relevant contribution to said electoral strategy, but also because you really don't want to hear my opinion on the subject.
i'm not being snarky in an attempt to win anything. i'm being snarky because a serious conversation on the subject here, with you, is not worth having. there's nothing to win or lose either way. and i genuinely don't even intend that to be mean.
and talking to me about centrist electoral strategy is doubly wasted effort. both because neither you nor i nor anyone who will ever read this will ever make a relevant contribution to said electoral strategy, but also because you really don't want to hear my opinion on the subject.
i'm not being snarky in an attempt to win anything. i'm being snarky because a serious conversation on the subject here, with you, is not worth having. there's nothing to win or lose either way. and i genuinely don't even intend that to be mean.
now you're getting into the spirit of things.
not sure your average social democrat needs much convincing on that front.
not sure your average social democrat needs much convincing on that front.
The whole "a meaningful conversation will never happen due to the location" is pretty weak. I've had plenty of interesting conversations here and I think it depends on the willingness of both people to speak in good faith to define whether or not a conversation is worth having as opposed to where it's taking place. I might even argue this particular forum is a better place than most for such conversations precisely because it is nominally a forum for a "sword game" and as relatively neutral as you can get for demographics.
I agree for another reason. I could have this conversation live with someone I work with, but I'll probably end up unwittingly insulting her. So, I kind of wanted to calibrate my language first by throwing risky stuff at Monty and figure out the sensitive spots, but he refuses to be a
you will note i gave more reasons for the conversation not being meaningful than just the location.
i would consider that an incredibly bold claim.
