Wokery

[dowie]

I trust the combined expertise of academia and study of subjects resulting in colloquial terms emerging within language over you, a man with 50k posts on OcUK and 0 qualifications or authority on anything.

Try reading the book, you may learn something.

What exactly are you trusting them on here? Do you not think critically about anything yourself, why base any of this on trust?

How is this the "combined expertise of academia" when you're referring to one woman in a grievance studies field?

Note that instead of arguing the point on its merits you have to resort to ad hominems, that's not a good sign that you've got a solid position here. Your argument so far is just an argument from authority + ad hominem... pure fallacy so far.

 

[dlockers]

"debate me bro"

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Maybe, do you have anything to suggest he wouldn't have? An almost identical situation happened with a white person (Tony Timpa), on drugs like GF and cops knelt on him for 13 minutes while already handcuffed and made jokes about him until he died - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_c-E_i8Q5G0 - most people probably haven't seen that because it doesn't fit the narrative that the media constantly gaslights people with. ****** cops exist regardless of race.

Ultimately nobody except DC knows if the GF incident had anything to do with race, yet the media has unequivocally decided it happened because of race.

I think most people are aware of that case because it got lots of publicity during the DC case. That case stinks and those sadistic cops should never have been given a badge.

Edit: its also another perfect example of the police being given far too much protection by the law, protection that should be removed by Congress.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It started in the late 80s actually, the proponents of this stuff and other similar fields do tend to see themselves as a continuation of the civil rights movement but really they're not very well aligned as most of the ideology is illiberal. This is the standard denial tactic, either make something overly broad or overly narrow, referring to CRT as just confined to law schools etc.. or applications of it as "just teaching kids about racism". In the latter case, re: the overly broad claim, it's like the whole "Antifa doesn't exist, it's a moment" line parrotted around "if you don't like fascism then you're Antifa".

It originated in the mid 70s off the back of the civil right movement. You might not like the theory, we get that, I've not looked that hard at it because it holds little interest but there is lots of reading that gives the outlines. However US history and even current events are there for all to see, race does and will continue to play a huge part in US politics for the foreseeable future.

Yes, I know, again, to make a point! Whoosh....

An irrelevant point dowie, I think it whooshed over your own head. You can't just say something that doesn't apply and then just claim it was making a point and so is relevant. Nice try though.

No, they were protesting the perception that the election had been stolen or something. It doesn't apply either way, again, various political views are held by people of many different backgrounds.

Are you going to pretend that "white rage" is only ever applied in very narrow circumstances to literal white supremacists rather than white people who hold particular political views that aren't exclusive to white people? Again I think I need to point out that just because some grievance studies academics use a term doesn't mean you should blindly accept and defend it.

White replacement is a huge part of right wing politics. Its pushed on Fox and other media, it was part of Trump's message to his MAGA base. It fits perfectly into the "Big Lie" election being stolen as a lot of the counties that cost Trump the election were non white. They weren't at the Capitol that day because of just one event, its been slow build up and this "white rage" has been given oxygen along the way. It isn't going anywhere either, its only going to get worse as more and more oxygen gets thrown at it.

 

[hurfdurf]

What exactly are you trusting them on here? Do you not think critically about anything yourself, why base any of this on trust?

How is this the "combined expertise of academia" when you're referring to one woman in a grievance studies field?

Note that instead of arguing the point on its merits you have to resort to ad hominems, that's not a good sign that you've got a solid position here. Your argument so far is just an argument from authority + ad hominem... pure fallacy so far.

They’ve presented their arguments after critical thought, they make sense to me and I trust them to not be misleading me. On the other hand, I trust that you are a nobody, and look at your arguments, and they don’t hold any water, nor do you have anything to back up what you say in terms of qualifications, accolades, or success. You can’t even understand what a colloquialism is. Look at you assuming I’ve not done some critical thought and simply “trust” someone, despite me not saying that, just because I said I trust someone. It’s very strange of you.

It’s also not a lone person using it. You’d know that and encounter it being used if you actually followed some of these topics that you try and discuss. Read the book.

"debate me bro"

lol he is one of those isn’t he. Mods must condemn.

 

[dowie]

It originated in the mid 70s off the back of the civil right movement.

Critical Race Theory started in the late 80s, you're perhaps conflating some of the stuff it was derived from here.

Again though the attempts to associate it with the civil rights movement is far from the whole picture given that it is rather illiberal and in conflict with some of the ideals from that movement - for example equality, colour blindness etc..

You might not like the theory, we get that, I've not looked that hard at it because it holds little interest but there is lots of reading that gives the outlines. However US history and even current events are there for all to see, race does and will continue to play a huge part in US politics for the foreseeable future.

Again, criticism of critical race theory isn't dependent on acceptance or denial of anything in US history!

An irrelevant point dowie, I think it whooshed over your own head. You can't just say something that doesn't apply and then just claim it was making a point and so is relevant. Nice try though.

It does apply though, that's why I'm saying it went right over your head - you don't grasp the rather simple point being made re: trying to associate rather broad political positions with race. If you think "white rage" is only used in reference to literal white supremacy or white replacement then you're being rather naive.

White replacement is a huge part of right wing politics. Its pushed on Fox and other media, it was part of Trump's message to his MAGA base. It fits perfectly into the "Big Lie" election being stolen as a lot of the counties that cost Trump the election were non white. They weren't at the Capitol that day because of just one event, its been slow build up and this "white rage" has been given oxygen along the way. It isn't going anywhere either, its only going to get worse as more and more oxygen gets thrown at it.

Is that what you believe white rage is only used in reference to? Some narrow position? Do you not see the issue here yet again, you want to dismiss criticism of something by feigning that it only applies to a narrow area of at least just focusing on that narrower area.

Back in reality it is used in reference to any opposition to a broad range of "progressive" political positions on race, that opposition is hardly confined to white people, you might find Asian people with legitimate beef in relation to Affirmative Action at US universities or attempts to remove standardised testing etc.. you could well find black people who are opposed to the removal of standardised testing too.

Do you see the point here yet? It should be self-explanatory without the need for an example - the logic is easy enough to follow - that it is flawed and unhelpful to associate a bunch of political positions with race.

 

[dowie]

They’ve presented their arguments after critical thought, they make sense to me and I trust them to not be misleading me. On the other hand, I trust that you are a nobody, and look at your arguments, and they don’t hold any water, nor do you have anything to back up what you say in terms of qualifications, accolades, or success. You can’t even understand what a colloquialism is. Look at you assuming I’ve not done some critical thought and simply “trust” someone, despite me not saying that, just because I said I trust someone. It’s very strange of you.

I'm not making an assumption though am I. All you've done here is just repeat the same argument from authority + ad hominem lines.

If you want to throw in some critical thought or arguments here then go ahead... If you think something I've said doesn't hold any water then challenge it, criticise it... pointing out that I'm a nobody on a forum where we're all anonymous is a bit moot, why not make an argument on it's own merits here?

 

[hurfdurf]

I'm not making an assumption though am I. All you've done here is just repeat the same argument from authority + ad hominem lines.

If you want to throw in some critical thought or arguments here then go ahead... If you think something I've said doesn't hold any water then challenge it, criticise it... pointing out that I'm a nobody on a forum where we're all anonymous is a bit moot, why not make an argument on it's own merits here?

You did make the assumption. I said I trust someone. You assumed therefore that my only thought process was that I trust them, and that I did no critical thinking myself.

You are the discount Ben Shapiro of the forum it would seem. Mods must condemn.

 

[dowie]

You did make the assumption. I said I trust someone. You assumed therefore that my only thought process was that I trust them, and that I did no critical thinking myself.

Nope, I didn't assume, I asked you questions given that you didn't put forwards any argument yourself:

What exactly are you trusting them on here? Do you not think critically about anything yourself, why base any of this on trust?

If you have some thoughts of your own then why are you seemingly unable to share them and instead resort to just making claims that you trust some dubious academic and then throwing in a personal attack... in place of a coherent argument?

You are the discount Ben Shapiro of the forum it would seem. Mods must condemn.

Funny considering I'm a liberal...

Are you going to put forwards any argument here at all or are you just reliant still on ad hominems...

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Discount Ben Shapiro is genius!!! a bit harsh as he's nowhere near as annoying as Ben Shapiro.

 

[Reality|Bites]

If you want to see a true racist and homophobe, and I bet he has Nazi tattoos under that suit, look up Gavin McInnes on youtube, I watched one video and was totally disgusted, now I keep getting him recommended
cue me saying i'm not interested.

 

[i-bert]

Discount Ben Shapiro is genius!!! a bit harsh as he's nowhere near as annoying as Ben Shapiro.

Even if it were true, I'd be a bit embarrassed that even a discount BS ripped you both a new one in a discussion.

 

[Tony Edwards]

Even if it were true, I'd be a bit embarrassed that even a discount BS ripped you both a new one in a discussion.

lol. Never before has the term 'In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king' rung truer with you lot.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Even if it were true, I'd be a bit embarrassed that even a discount BS ripped you both a new one in a discussion.

Oh did he It was just a typical dowie discussion. Goes round and round and round and round.......

 

[dowie]

Even if it were true, I'd be a bit embarrassed that even a discount BS ripped you both a new one in a discussion.

I wouldn’t put it like that per se but it was interesting that neither of them seems able to address any arguments here.

It's also perhaps indicative of how this sort of ideology is able to spread - one of the posters I'd perhaps describe as quite woke, his argument seems to be to not even attempt to make an argument - just attack the poster/call people names. He's read the book by the grievance studies academic and that's it, that's the truth.

The other poster I'm not sure is woke but rather perhaps is a moderate, centrist type who is quite ignorant of this stuff - is attempting to defend it presumably because it seems intuitively the right thing to do. So all we've seen there is some borderline straw man type arguments where they act as though this is just opposition to white supremacy and perfectly reasonable, nothing to see here, move along....

I guess lots of moderates will become "useful idiots" for the woke ideologues, it sounds like the right sort of thing to support, of course you're against racism etc.. while being ignorant of the reality that lots of this stuff goes against liberal values.

 

[cheesyboy]

.. while being ignorant of the reality that lots of this stuff goes against liberal values.

Probably because many (most?) of the people you're talking about are 'progressives', not 'liberals'.

 

[dowie]

Probably because many (most?) of the people you're talking about are 'progressives', not 'liberals'.

Nah, that would apply to the first part of my post. I'm referring to more moderate, centrist or center-left types.

I don't know whether that applies to the poster here but it certainly seems to be the case more generally that otherwise liberal people fall victim to aspects of "wokeness" these days.

Of course you're against racism, or of course you're against fascism... But being an "anti-racist" is a bit different, it sounds appealing but there is more to it. Likewise, for example, being against fascism doesn't mean you should necessarily support antifa groups.

There is currently a push by progressives to convert liberals/moderates... "educate yourself", "do the work", you should read all the new woke books etc.. with their flawed, illiberal ideology.

 

[hurfdurf]

Discount Ben Shapiro is genius!!! a bit harsh as he's nowhere near as annoying as Ben Shapiro.

No, but he does talk to himself and congratulate his “debate wins” as people refuse to engage with his ridiculous prepositions whilst talking utter nonsense about subjects. Only instead of doing it on YouTube and getting paid he does it for free on a computer tech forum he has 50k+ posts on…. a lot of which are actual effort posts where he’s written multiple paragraphs (that I don’t really read when I respond to him because lol and yet he still continues to bite).

Imagine if he put that effort into actually doing something with his life and achieved something? Maybe then he wouldn’t feel the need to rail against “Woke” and other things that he’s scared of in terms of changing the society where he’s currently got significant privilege.

 

[dowie]

^^ lots more projection again and still no substance. Not sure where I've congratulated myself on any "debate wins" here, rather I've simply pointed out that the replies are low quality/have little merit.

 

[cheesyboy]

a lot of which are actual effort posts where he’s written multiple paragraphs (that I don’t really read when I respond to him because lol and yet he still continues to bite).

One of the reasons I almost never write more than approx 150 words in a post is that I almost never read a whole post if it's more than approx 150 words.

There's an art to getting a point across, relying on shear brute force ain't it.