„Woke Culture“ is a child of Neo-liberal capitalism

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Yet what got Trump elected in the first place? How does someone like that ever become president?! 

By running against another unpopular candidate after the opposition party has had two terms already helps and the complacent generated by a sense of impossibility of trump getting elected. Honestly, any other Gop probably would have beaten and gone on to beat the Democratic nominee

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Some level of introspection is needed from the left, I don’t know why that is such a challenging idea to you.

Um there's a difference between going through a level of introspection and then acting like just going “im anti-woke!” is going to be a winning strategy for any electorate and hyperventilating over any thing that could be seen as remotely “woke”

It's silly quite frankly. 

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Why should something like protecting LGBT rights be a devisive issue for people?

It wouldn't be an issue if the right stopped attacking them.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It only becomes something that people have to take a side on when the conversation gets steered onto topics where there really is not a consensus.

Yes, people disagree when they disagree.

The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want to execute members the lgbt.

Now why can't the lgbt just be content with that consensus?

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

In the same way there should be universal support to reform the police , but then someone comes up with a slogan like defund the police and it becomes something people need to take sides on.

Yeah Biden never said defund the police.

Neither did most of the highest levels of the party at a federal or statewide level.

You can point to some cities who've tried this? But most including  typically Democratic controlled have not; in fact many upped their police budget https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-city-budget-police-defunding/

 hashtags popular on Twitter is not representative of general policy positions  from a political party.

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I just think some of the left is often incredibly tone deaf, and can’t see how it’s rhetoric seem outside of its bubble,

Does the fact that over 80,000,000 million Americans came out to vote for a man who's main appeals is that he's boring and inoffensive just to get Trump out not say anything of substance to you? 

Like maybe there are limits to the whole screeching “woke bad!” approach. 

Trump was a terrible and he lost worse than any incumbent for president for decades. Yet the right continues and hold onto him and virtue signaling on how great he was.

Doesn't that strike you as a little tone deaf?

Just a little? 

Heck doesn't the fact the GOP typically lose handily outside of white people say something to you?

Or that Democrats represent more Americans in government in total?

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Honestly the language you use in your posts is so descriptive of this, it’s all ‘anyone who isn’t a white male’ type of language that I guess from your perspective you can’t see a problem with, but you don’t get how it comes across either.

Eh, sorry if my language triggered you but it's a fairly fair characterization of what you're trying to do.

If the left stopped talking about woke things like; combating any systemic bigotry against x group nonwhite, male group they'd win more.

Talking about that stuff just cause needless division. They should be singing a nationalist tune lol.

 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

Who is calling out LBJ? You? Dante? Tywin? Varys? Don’t make me laugh. Just excuses. Though I did call out that Özil is wrong in supporting a demagogue like Erdogan. 

I was called everything under the sun for calling out LBJ. People got aggressive and defensive. I was even called a Nazi. 

It would help if you hadn't lied about and exaggerated what LeBron did. As I detailed, he said someone who expressed support for Hong Kong protesters was ignorant. He did not even mention China or the Uighurs. And apparently you think 20 years of philanthropy is worth wiping out over that while you spend pages trying to justify some piece of shit who's friends with Erdogan.

Pretty sure LeBron didn't make friends with Xi or Trump or even George W. Bush. You have inconsistent scales of logic and convenient reasoning to excuse your own compromises. It's amazing how blind you are to this.

That's why you get all this pushback. If you don't want to be called names maybe don't be so sure of the evil of others that you've lied about.

Eta: I responded before I saw Mormont's post. I'll drop it here.

[Fury Resurrected]

7 hours ago, Ran said:

Yes, I'm aware of @TrueMetis and his indigenous status, thank you. 

His beliefs do not outweigh any other indigenous person's beliefs. Neither do yours. You do not get to erase the fact that other indigenous people have different views because you don't agree with them on this subject.

You made a pretty specific claim: Yascha Mounk's piece in The Atlantic (not The Washington Post, as I mistakingly said) should be dismissed because his use of American Indian was some kind of proof that he (and The Atlantic, presumably) has a racist agenda. That claim is clearly incorrect.

That's it. That's what you should take out of this. You were wrong to make that claim as a matter of fact rather than personal opinion, and everyone who came to that same conclusion specifically because you voiced them was mislead about the reality of the situation, and proceeded to wrongly browbeat people who were rightly uncertain about the accuracy of your claim.

Every time you double-down on this idea that your identity or TrueMetis's identity is more important than that of Dr. Bissonette or Russell Means or whoever else, you are making a fairly fundamental error: that being on this forum has provided you the privilege of defining the truth in areas you have unique expertise in. That's just not true. Your opinion and your personal experiences are insightful and valuable, but they are not gospel to anyone but you. Or at least, they should not be; our capacity to reason is one of the things that is a hallmark of our species, and we should exercise it in all things.

I'm Hispanic. I don't much care for "latinx" as a term because it is a construct created by academic elites that ignores the fundamental grammar of the Spanish language, and because it is not reflective of the lived experience of the overwhelming majority of Spanish-speaking people in the world.

And yet if someone prefers to be identified as such, I will do so, nor do I deny that they have reasoned arguments for why it should in fact become more widely adopted. I can disagree with them without denying that the disagreement exists. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

 

The unfortunate truth is that for the majority of people on this board, @TrueMetis and I are the only North American indigenous people they have access to talking to directly on indigenous issues. Conversely- we have direct access to tons of other indigenous people. We ourselves have direct experience, our families have direct experience, and it’s something our whole lives have had to be informed by. Claiming that ones Google searches can give any sort of nuanced and deep view because you’ve clipped a few parts of an article is ridiculous. The existence of the United Negro College Fund and people who are fine with that term doesn’t mean it’s okay for us to use it, it means it is okay for *them* to use it. I am fine with indigenous organizations and individuals using it, I am not fine with government organizations and media using it. And as I said before, we don’t need to look to an almost decade dead leader from the sixties for leadership on Indigenous Justice issues, we have leaders today. Even if it were only my nation and TrueMetis’ who found it offensive- which it is not- native or indigenous are not offensive and easily used instead. Your insistence on advocating the use of a word that you’ve been told by two indigenous people is offensive who belong to different indigenous nations and different colonizing countries seems pretty weird and petty. What’s the threshold for updating terms? You seem to be advocating that every single person you can Google must agree and that is impossible, silly, and lazy. 

[karaddin]

This had me wondering what the AP stylebook said about the terms, I just looked it up and it still claims

Quote

American Indians, Native Americans

Both are acceptable terms in general references for those in the U.S. when referring to two or more people of different tribal affiliations.

Which surprised me. It does state for Indigenous Australians

Quote

Aborigine

An outdated term referring to aboriginal people in Australia. It is considered offensive by some and should be avoided.

And I doubt they receive more advocacy from Australia than the US, so I'm guessing they had more push back on making a similar statement. No comment on who that push back would have been coming from though.

Given the clear fact that some groups consider it offensive they should at least be encouraging the use of Native American rather than making them seem equal.

[DaveSumm]

14 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

The unfortunate truth is that for the majority of people on this board, @TrueMetis and I are the only North American indigenous people they have access to talking to directly on indigenous issues. Conversely- we have direct access to tons of other indigenous people. We ourselves have direct experience, our families have direct experience, and it’s something our whole lives have had to be informed by. Claiming that ones Google searches can give any sort of nuanced and deep view because you’ve clipped a few parts of an article is ridiculous.

This argues @Ran and my point perfectly; without any direct experience to guide them, how could the writer of the piece know which term to use? If so little exists online about the offensiveness of the term, if the AP declare it an ‘acceptable term’? How can this be used as evidence of bias?

I’ll say one last time and drop it, this... 

14 hours ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Your insistence on advocating the use of a word that you’ve been told by two indigenous people is offensive who belong to different indigenous nations and different colonizing countries seems pretty weird and petty. 

...is not what’s happening. Nobody is advocating its use, nobody ever was. I can’t help but refer back to the irony HoI was talking about: all those pages ago the point was that people don’t know which terms to use for fear of offending people: you then proceeded to get offended by a term that you yourself seem to argue is difficult to understand without direct experience.

[Ran]

4 hours ago, karaddin said:

Given the clear fact that some groups consider it offensive they should at least be encouraging the use of Native American rather than making them seem equal.

Again, as I've noted, there are people who also find Native American offensive. The issue is that there is no universally accepted term, but there are two that have wide usage which the majority of Native people use without any particular offense: Native American and American Indian. 

 

It's not just the AP. Here's what the Native American Journalists Association posted in November of 2018 (PDF link):

Quote

American Indian or Native American

Either term is generally acceptable and can be used interchangeably, although individuals may have a preference. Native American gained traction in the 1960s for American Indians and Alaska Natives. Over time, Native American has been expanded to include all Native people of the continental United States and some of Alaska. Native American and American Indian can be used interchangeably; however, the term is used only to describe groups of Native Americans - two or more individuals of different tribal affiliation. Journalists should always identify people by their preferred tribal affiliation when reporting on individuals or individual tribes.

 

[mormont]

I don't claim to be qualified to say what terminology is offensive and what is not.

I do suggest that, while one may understandably want to make a point in defence of one's own understanding of the situation, belabouring that point carries a risk of being offensive to someone who has made it clear that they consider the term offensive, requiring as it does repeated and frequent use of the term that they have said they find offensive. This is, to say the least, insensitive, and not a little rude.

ETA - it would obviously be different if this was, say, Fury and TrueMetis arguing among themselves, but coming from people outside the group it reads another way. To me, anyway.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 minute ago, mormont said:

I don't claim to be qualified to say what terminology is offensive and what is not.

I do suggest that, while one may understandably want to make a point in defence of one's own understanding of the situation, belabouring that point carries a risk of being offensive to someone who has made it clear that they consider the term offensive, requiring as it does repeated and frequent use of the term that they have said they find offensive. This is, to say the least, insensitive, and not a little rude.

Par for the course on indigenous topics on this board, sadly. The assumption that a Google search is just as good as directly having information from a lifetime of discussions about how to introduce our ethnicities among our peers is very rude and patronizing and not how members of other groups tend to get treated here about their lived experiences. Happens every time.

[Isalie]

Well, people being ignorant of proper terminology sure killed the topic at least, which i guess is kinda analogous of the larger problem of shifting focus from any class struggle to something that wont hurt anyones bottom line. I.e. Greta makes some good points, but what about that boat.

[Ran]

7 minutes ago, mormont said:

in defence of one's own understanding of the situation

In defense of general understanding of the subject. I am not substituting my own personal understanding of things when I point out what the scholars at the National Museum or Native journalists at the Native American Journalists Association say, just as Karaddin was not when she shared what the AP said on the subject. 

The standard of the forum can and will remain that when we discuss nomenclature as a subject, we should discuss it honestly and forthrightly.

But if we are not discussing it, and instead just using nomenclature in passing, then yes, if there are several acceptable terms but members of the forum indicate a preference of one over another, we should strive to use that term.

Personally, I was taught and have always used "Native American" when speaking of the broad group.

[karaddin]

59 minutes ago, Ran said:

Again, as I've noted, there are people who also find Native American offensive. The issue is that there is no universally accepted term, but there are two that have wide usage which the majority of Native people use without any particular offense: Native American and American Indian. 

I must have missed any examples of people finding Native American outright offensive on its own rather than simply preferring the other option.

My knowledge is primarily coming from the Australian perspective so I tend towards indigenous (which should be capitalized when referring to a specific group, such as Indigenous Australians). Has that got much history of usage in the US and Canada? I think I've been following the lead of Fury by using that, so hope that's without the troubled history.

[Ran]

Just now, karaddin said:

I must have missed any examples of people finding Native American outright offensive on its own rather than simply preferring the other option.

Here's an editorial from a Native newspaper, the Native Sun News of Rapid City, South Dakota, laying out why the editorial board objected to it, but TL;DR it's a term constructed by white academics and the government. It's from 2015, but there's another in a similar vein in 2019 (though I'll note that in both cases they cite among their reasons a false etymology, allegedly rooted in something Colombus wrote about "en Dios", which scholars find no evidence for but which has had currency among some Natives.)

 

I believe one of these editorials also dismissed "Indigenous" because it's what scientists also describe plants and animals as being, reducing them to part of the flora and fauna of the landscape.

Obviously, these are ideological arguments being made, and I don't present them as representing all the reasons for why some dislike them. It's just one group's view on it, but it is a contemporary viewpoint.

Apparently some groups in Canada dislike "Indigenous" but because of its similarity to the French "indigène" which was historically used pejoratively. 

I decided to look at Google's Ngram Viewer (which lets you look at usage of words and phrases from over 200 years of scanned-in Google Books), and it seems clear that "Native American" had its peak in 2000 and has steadily fallen since, and so has "American Indian" (which peaked in the late 80s) though at a lesser rate this last decade. What the editorial refers to is probably right: people are starting to use alternatives, such as just "Native" or "Indigenous" or eschew broad collective terms and instead referring to themselves by tribal nation or band. But basically there's no broad consensus at this time. There are arguments for and against basically every term in common usage.

[Arakan]

All in all, this topic was a huge success and actually proved the initial point quite well. Meta-Discussion and hypocrisy dominated the pages instead of actually discussing what people should discuss: justice and fairness so that no person gets left behind or exploited. 

Na, it shows that this here is mostly a first-world forum (nothing wrong with that) with first-world problems. As a wonderfully illustrative example Ran, himself a Hispanic (with all implications) rationally and logically tried to show which terms can be used wrt „people whose ancestors have been living on the North American continent for 20,000 years“ and still he got attacked by a user. Nevermind. I even got a PM of a another User here, telling me (in friendly manner) I shouldn’t use the word „triggered“ because that MIGHT be understood as offensive.

With that being said here comes my conclusion: all first-world users here who are offended by everything, please go out into the world, take a look around. Smell the air of poverty, child labor, exploitation, slave labor, war and maybe then some of you will realize that though all problems are important but not equally important. 

[Alarich II]

On 5/13/2021 at 10:50 AM, Arakan said:

Afaik you are German and @Luzifer's right hand is Austrian. Either way, in both countries Turkish migrants or citizens of Turkish heritage had to face and still face a lot of racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and discrimination. Especially Özil was never really accepted as „German“ by rightwingers. I feel some bias here which you and Lucifer might check. 

He did speak out against the genocide against the Uighurs, was this wrong or right? Did his „friendship“ with Erdogan change anything? Did he sacrifice money for speaking out? 

You asked a question: You wanted to know what oppression Özil supports. I answered that question for you, but now you are just deflecting. 

Özil spoke out against the Genocide in China. That is good. He also supports Erdogan and the crimes of the Turkish nationalists against minorities like Armenians and Kurds. That is bad. LBJames supports a lot of charities, that is good. He spoke out against criticism of Chinas government, that is bad. 

Therefore, there is no fundamental difference between the German football player of Turkish descent and the American basketball player of black descent for the sake of this discussion here. They are both very rich, and still have a close connection to their respective communities, the majority of whom did and still do experience discrimination. And they use their ressources to help those communities, but not necessarily others (in a global sense).

Yet, here you are, propping up the German as an example of virtue and the American as an example of vice. And speaking of biases, here we have a prime example of yours.  

 

[karaddin]

Here's a suggestion - if you want to communicate your point accurately in a language that isn't your primary one, and a bunch of people tell you that the words you're using lead people to think you mean something you insist you don't, maybe try taking that feedback on board.

The explanation for why using the word "triggered" in a psychological context is a bad idea takes several steps and you don't sound interested in having them described, but the short answer is that it's making fun of PTSD for the purposes of ridiculing reasonable accommodations made for people that need them. And then years of meaning creep broadened the usage. But if you use it in a way that's ridiculing someone for having an emotional reaction to something, and that could have been thrown at you probably more than 5 times in this thread alone, you're going to come across as a fuckwit gamer or that sort of personality.

If that's the impression you want to convey, then knock yourself out. If you don't, consider changing your language choice.

[Arakan]

20 minutes ago, Alarich II said:

 

Yet, here you are, propping up the German as an example of virtue and the American as an example of vice. And speaking of biases, here we have a prime example of yours.  

Özil sacrificed millions of Euros, there‘s your difference. But if you like it, Hakan Sükür spoke out against Erdogan so that he had to leave his country. I admire him as well for that because he sacrificed for doing the right thing. Spare me your „German biases“. 

[Arakan]

21 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Here's a suggestion - if you want to communicate your point accurately in a language that isn't your primary one, and a bunch of people tell you that the words you're using lead people to think you mean something you insist you don't, maybe try taking that feedback on board.

The explanation for why using the word "triggered" in a psychological context is a bad idea takes several steps and you don't sound interested in having them described, but the short answer is that it's making fun of PTSD for the purposes of ridiculing reasonable accommodations made for people that need them. And then years of meaning creep broadened the usage. But if you use it in a way that's ridiculing someone for having an emotional reaction to something, and that could have been thrown at you probably more than 5 times in this thread alone, you're going to come across as a fuckwit gamer or that sort of personality.

If that's the impression you want to convey, then knock yourself out. If you don't, consider changing your language choice.

Please. If I am not sure about a word I look into a dictionary. The word „triggered“ was proposed but guess what, I even changed it. Come of your high horse. Gamer? I don’t play video games, what should that mean?

[karaddin]

Just now, Arakan said:

Please. If I am not sure about a word I look into a dictionary. The word „triggered“ was proposed but guess what, I even changed it. Come of your high horse. Gamer? I don’t play video games, what should that mean?

A literal description of the kind of person called to mind by using that word in that context. I'm informing you of the associations that some people will have to it. Not claiming you are that. Suggesting you not use it is actually, at least to me, assuming that you aren't what is implied by speaking that way.

[Arakan]

Just now, karaddin said:

A literal description of the kind of person called to mind by using that word in that context. I'm informing you of the associations that some people will have to it. Not claiming you are that. Suggesting you not use it is actually, at least to me, assuming that you aren't what is implied by speaking that way.

Allright. I like your posts in general so I don’t want to fight with you. I am capable of learning. That’s not the issue. The issue is losing focus. I leave it at that. 

[Week]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:52 PM, Week said:

This has been a good demonstration, a few cases, where the pushback on PC and "woke" culture is a combination of perceived embarrassment/shame and innate defensiveness.

There are certainly instances where the correction is more of an attack - which is regrettable but understandable. That said - fragility and self-centeredness is frankly the source of the issue.