The "Black Hole" of woke....
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Aug 2022, 5:57 pm
kraftiekortie wrote:
I guess it's a "societal" thing-----but I like to try to put my "best foot forward" in front of a woman.
I always figured one is putting zero feet forward with the folks one meets in public bathrooms
Unless that's one's thing...
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
26 Aug 2022, 6:01 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Neoliberal isn't an insult, it's the core ideology of our current political environment.
Among things, centrist ought to be recognized as distinct from moderate, even though they will often overlap greatly in practice. Centrism can become a fixation, whereas the people I'm defining as moderates would be more prone to pragmatism over centrism as an ideology.
A centrist would continue to insist for a hypothetical middle path even after most of the moderates have shifted to recognizing someone has offered an actual, defined path that's workable.
A centrist would continue to argue that minorities should compromise on their basic civil rights because opposition would be very unhappy, even if those rights can be secured immediately.
A 'happy medium' doesn't always exist and in those cases people who advocate for delaying the advancement of other people's civil rights because we need to compromise end up, in practice, no different from the ones arguing those rights don't need to be respected, period.
They're both saying these people deserve less than everyone else, it's just a matter of one being honest in their intentions while the other wishes to appear to have better intentions. They're both delaying some people's fair treatment.
Among things, centrist ought to be recognized as distinct from moderate, even though they will often overlap greatly in practice. Centrism can become a fixation, whereas the people I'm defining as moderates would be more prone to pragmatism over centrism as an ideology.
A centrist would continue to insist for a hypothetical middle path even after most of the moderates have shifted to recognizing someone has offered an actual, defined path that's workable.
A centrist would continue to argue that minorities should compromise on their basic civil rights because opposition would be very unhappy, even if those rights can be secured immediately.
A 'happy medium' doesn't always exist and in those cases people who advocate for delaying the advancement of other people's civil rights because we need to compromise end up, in practice, no different from the ones arguing those rights don't need to be respected, period.
They're both saying these people deserve less than everyone else, it's just a matter of one being honest in their intentions while the other wishes to appear to have better intentions. They're both delaying some people's fair treatment.
Another brilliant post, Funeralxempire.
_________________
"A loaded gun won't set you free. So you say." - Ian Curtis
26 Aug 2022, 7:34 pm
Dox47 wrote:
Forget the bathrooms, let's talk about women's prisons, lesbian spaces, and the "cotton ceiling" if we're going to go all in on trans issues and want to talk about some less trivial problems.
Wait....aren't you "righties" the ones overblowing this issue about trans rights? now you claim it's trivial? you can'y have it both ways.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Aug 2022, 8:13 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Forget the bathrooms, let's talk about women's prisons, lesbian spaces, and the "cotton ceiling" if we're going to go all in on trans issues and want to talk about some less trivial problems.
Wait....aren't you "righties" the ones overblowing this issue about trans rights? now you claim it's trivial? you can'y have it both ways.
For what it's worth, those all seem like more valid concerns than where people deposit their waste.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
26 Aug 2022, 8:50 pm
League_Girl wrote:
Thankfully bathrooms have stalls. I like my privacy. It doesn't matter if there is a man in the restroom, he can't see me go unless he peeks through the crack.
Exactly. Women's restrooms have stalls.
But there have been trans-phobic individuals spying through the door cracks to make sure the person using the stall is physically female. The phobia is more damaging than the object of the fear.
If someone pretends to be female to gain access to a bathroom and assault someone, they are a criminal and will be prosecuted. It isn't like men that look like and identify as men have never sneaked in to commit assault; if traffic is quiet enough for there to be a one on one opportunity for assault inside the restroom, the traffic is also quiet enough for an obvious male to sneak into a women's restroom and hide in a stall. So, yeah, the whole phobia of trans-women in women's restrooms is ridiculous. You'll never even know the real trans-women are there.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
26 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
cyberdad wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Forget the bathrooms, let's talk about women's prisons, lesbian spaces, and the "cotton ceiling" if we're going to go all in on trans issues and want to talk about some less trivial problems.
Wait....aren't you "righties" the ones overblowing this issue about trans rights? now you claim it's trivial? you can'y have it both ways.
Dox47 isn't a "righty," he's mostly libertarian but also currently frustrated by quite a few things Democratic politicians have been doing.
Personally, I have to admit ... I thought the world had moved on past the whole bathroom issue, and did roll my eyes a little that it managed to come up again.
Also have to admit, I'd never heard the term "cotton ceiling," and looked that one up. Hm, I have opinions, but not really interested in expanding the things debated in this thread.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
26 Aug 2022, 9:06 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
For what it's worth, those all seem like more valid concerns than where people deposit their waste.
Care to wager if he has to Google what at least one of those things is?
I really don't care for the most part about trans stuff, I think it's largely blown out of proportion, but I can't stand sacred cows that you aren't supposed to question, especially when the bovine in question has quite so many defense mechanisms, from TERF accusations (seriously, it's just a slur at this point, it has no actual meaning) to "believe the science" (that is often shoddy and has no real track record), to emotional blackmail (they'll kill themselves if you don't use the right terminology), it all raises giant red flags to me.
The women's prisons thing is probably the most serious, there have been multiple instances of unaltered males claiming transgender identity being housed with natal female inmates and going on to rape them, I think the only reason it hasn't been a bigger scandal has been media aversion to the stories. It kind of reminds me of the grooming gangs incidents in the UK, where the police slow walked or outright ignored multiple cases of organized sexual exploitation of minors because the perpetrators were all Pakistanis (IIRC), and they were afraid of looking racist. Can you even imagine the outrage if those stories were more widely known?
Transbians and their issues are mostly just sad, but the entitlement displayed by the whole cotton ceiling thing is pretty gross, truly toxic behavior excused because of the identity of the perpetrators.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
26 Aug 2022, 9:16 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
Personally, I have to admit ... I thought the world had moved on past the whole bathroom issue, and did roll my eyes a little that it managed to come up again.
Also have to admit, I'd never heard the term "cotton ceiling," and looked that one up. Hm, I have opinions, but not really interested in expanding the things debated in this thread.
Also have to admit, I'd never heard the term "cotton ceiling," and looked that one up. Hm, I have opinions, but not really interested in expanding the things debated in this thread.
Trans issues are the real black hole of a debate, it's just a toxic scene, and you truly would probably have a hard time believing some of the stuff you'll hear if you dig into it. I feel bad because I honestly think it's a situation where a community is being poorly served by the "activists" claiming to represent them, I suspect the vast majority of trans people would prefer to quietly live as their chosen gender without all the fuss, but this *extremely* loud minority manages to command all the attention and drives the issue. As with woke stuff generally, far too many people use these issues as basically a license to be a jerk, indulging in all of their bullying instincts with the patina of moral righteousness making it "okay" for them to do, good even, all the while fomenting a backlash against the very people they claim to be helping.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
26 Aug 2022, 10:18 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
Dox47 isn't a "righty," he's mostly libertarian but also currently frustrated by quite a few things Democratic politicians have been doing.
From what I have seen, many Libertarians position themselves on the right and are in some agreement with a lot of what the Trumpites espouse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
I think our mutual friend definitely falls into this camp.
26 Aug 2022, 10:26 pm
DW_a_mom wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
Thankfully bathrooms have stalls. I like my privacy. It doesn't matter if there is a man in the restroom, he can't see me go unless he peeks through the crack.
Exactly. Women's restrooms have stalls.
But there have been trans-phobic individuals spying through the door cracks to make sure the person using the stall is physically female. The phobia is more damaging than the object of the fear.
If someone pretends to be female to gain access to a bathroom and assault someone, they are a criminal and will be prosecuted. It isn't like men that look like and identify as men have never sneaked in to commit assault; if traffic is quiet enough for there to be a one on one opportunity for assault inside the restroom, the traffic is also quiet enough for an obvious male to sneak into a women's restroom and hide in a stall. So, yeah, the whole phobia of trans-women in women's restrooms is ridiculous. You'll never even know the real trans-women are there.
So that's how they know a woman had a penis. I remember seeing a video of a tran swoman being beaten by two teens at a McDonalds, one of them being only 14. She didn't even look like a guy. I wondered how they knew she was trans.
_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed and ASD lv 1.
Daughter: NT, no diagnoses. Possibly OCD. Is very private about herself.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Aug 2022, 11:05 pm
Dox47 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
For what it's worth, those all seem like more valid concerns than where people deposit their waste.
Care to wager if he has to Google what at least one of those things is?
I really don't care for the most part about trans stuff, I think it's largely blown out of proportion, but I can't stand sacred cows that you aren't supposed to question, especially when the bovine in question has quite so many defense mechanisms, from TERF accusations (seriously, it's just a slur at this point, it has no actual meaning) to "believe the science" (that is often shoddy and has no real track record), to emotional blackmail (they'll kill themselves if you don't use the right terminology), it all raises giant red flags to me.
The women's prisons thing is probably the most serious, there have been multiple instances of unaltered males claiming transgender identity being housed with natal female inmates and going on to rape them, I think the only reason it hasn't been a bigger scandal has been media aversion to the stories. It kind of reminds me of the grooming gangs incidents in the UK, where the police slow walked or outright ignored multiple cases of organized sexual exploitation of minors because the perpetrators were all Pakistanis (IIRC), and they were afraid of looking racist. Can you even imagine the outrage if those stories were more widely known?
Transbians and their issues are mostly just sad, but the entitlement displayed by the whole cotton ceiling thing is pretty gross, truly toxic behavior excused because of the identity of the perpetrators.
It's obvious it can become a messy issue when multiple people's rights overlap or appear to be in conflict. I feel pretty strongly that one is entitled to genital or birth status preferences even if they can be framed as discriminatory, one is entitled to set whatever criteria they wish on who they might date or f**k.
In general, insisting an entitlement to partners (or to desirable partners) should be viewed as cringy and entitled.
I feel like media end up walking on egg shells with a lot of issues out of fear of triggering backlash, basically if a story will trigger outrage from any vocal group they seem to dither on how to properly report. They really seem to squirm over pretty much any accusation of bias except possibly when it's an accusation of being too pro-war or pro-business.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
26 Aug 2022, 11:20 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I'm not a very "political" person at all.
But when things go too far....they go too far.
I feel this when I have conversations with people who are full-throttle "woke." I might agree with 14 of their tenets; but if I don't agree with the 15th, all hell breaks loose. It's as if I was some sort of fascist.
But when things go too far....they go too far.
I feel this when I have conversations with people who are full-throttle "woke." I might agree with 14 of their tenets; but if I don't agree with the 15th, all hell breaks loose. It's as if I was some sort of fascist.
It probably comes down to the specific criticism and how much nuance the other party is actually recognizing.
There's plenty of issues on which one can make the basic case 'centrists are just the softest of the reactionaries', but one needs to at least be mindful that many of those centrists are open to change, either individually through debate, or over time as the culture's norms shift.
Yes, on the one hand they're almost certainly the majority of the people making the reactionary arguments but they're also likely to be the least invested in them compared to people to their right.
Plenty of centrists were anti-gay marriage until it became safe, centrists tend to be the slowest to take the threat from the far-right seriously, centrists are often more willing to support more investment in policing vs. investments into poverty reduction, etc. There's plenty of issues where centrists are the obstruction and their obstructionism leads to more reactionary positions finding success.
In all of those instances it's perfectly fair to condemn them as part of the problem since that's absolutely what they've demonstrated themselves to be.
The people who you are describing as centrists are conservatives whom were described as such until the the rise of the MAGA’s and the wokes. Now they are the pejoratives “RINO” and “neoliberal”. “Neoliberal” is that proof that people with radically different worldviews can agree on one thing most every problem is the fault of the neoliberals.
Often centrists and moderates are conflated viewed as weak people too willing to compromise on everything. While that describes some more often then not I have found that these people have strong opinions but they are strongly for or against an issue associated with the right and strongly for or against another issue associated with the left. In other words the only common ground us “centrists” have is dislike of the woke and MAGA movements and the polarization they are causing.
“RINO” and “neoliberal” are insults. “Centrist” is not accurate. What should “we” be called? “Politically homeless” has found some agency among us. “Politically non-binary” acknowledges the variety among us and is contemporary sounding. But it does not have the emotional pull of those other colloquial terms, and majority rules when it comes to colloquial terms, oh well.
Neoliberal isn't an insult, it's the core ideology of our current political environment.
Among things, centrist ought to be recognized as distinct from moderate, even though they will often overlap greatly in practice. Centrism can become a fixation, whereas the people I'm defining as moderates would be more prone to pragmatism over centrism as an ideology.
A centrist would continue to insist for a hypothetical middle path even after most of the moderates have shifted to recognizing someone has offered an actual, defined path that's workable.
A centrist would continue to argue that minorities should compromise on their basic civil rights because opposition would be very unhappy, even if those rights can be secured immediately.
A 'happy medium' doesn't always exist and in those cases people who advocate for delaying the advancement of other people's civil rights because we need to compromise end up, in practice, no different from the ones arguing those rights don't need to be respected, period.
They're both saying these people deserve less than everyone else, it's just a matter of one being honest in their intentions while the other wishes to appear to have better intentions. They're both delaying some people's fair treatment.
I have never heard anybody in the last 10 years or so use Neoliberal in a positive way or certainly describe themselves that way. The meaning has evolved to mean a person who is a shill for ruthless capitalism and are warmongers but try hide it by supporting some social programs. They are often conflated with the globalist elitists of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.
Neo liberal came into mainstream use as a descriptive term to describe Bill Clinton and like minded “Republican lite” Democrats. It was just after Neo Conservative reign during the Reagan administration so I assume “Neo” was on the mind of political reporters trying to describe Clintonian ideas and policies. With the rise of populism both left and right neoliberals became everybody's boogieman.
To describe centrists as people who think people “deserve” only oh so much or oh so much now is overly simplistic. Certainly there are centrists and moderates who are the caricature racists whose centerism either is a device to hide unacceptable viewpoints from others or are legitimately are fooling themselves. The difference between some centrists/moderates and people like yourself that they are more pessimistic. They rightly or wrongly believe that if things move “too fast” it will backfire on the deserving. Others things will backfire on deserving people because the policies if enacted are “too radical”.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,243
Location: Right over your left shoulder
26 Aug 2022, 11:31 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
I have never heard anybody in the last 10 years or so use Neoliberal in a positive way or certainly describe themselves that way.
I'd imagine part of that is due to it's failings becoming increasingly obvious.
ASPartOfMe wrote:
The meaning has evolved to mean a person who is a shill for ruthless capitalism and are warmongers but try hide it by supporting some social programs. They are often conflated with the globalist elitists of Alex Jones conspiracy theories.
Neo liberal came into mainstream use as a descriptive term to describe Bill Clinton and like minded “Republican lite” Democrats. It was just after Neo Conservative reign during the Reagan administration so I assume “Neo” was on the mind of political reporters trying to describe Clintonian ideas and policies. With the rise of populism both left and right neoliberals became everybody's boogieman.
Neo liberal came into mainstream use as a descriptive term to describe Bill Clinton and like minded “Republican lite” Democrats. It was just after Neo Conservative reign during the Reagan administration so I assume “Neo” was on the mind of political reporters trying to describe Clintonian ideas and policies. With the rise of populism both left and right neoliberals became everybody's boogieman.
Neoliberalism was named because it was supposed to represent a return to more classical liberal ideas and away from New Liberalism. Reagan was also a neoliberal, as were practically all of the other neoconservatives.
Neoliberalism became everyone's boogieman because too many people are afraid to just call it capitalism despite it being the overwhelmingly dominant flavour for the past several decades. Right-populists would trigger their audience if they called it capitalism and progressives are too afraid they'll be called commies (despite that they'll get called that regardless).
ASPartOfMe wrote:
To describe centrists as people who think people “deserve” only oh so much or oh so much now is overly simplistic. Certainly there are centrists and moderates who are the caricature racists whose centerism either is a device to hide unacceptable viewpoints from others or are legitimately are fooling themselves. The difference between some centrists/moderates and people like yourself that they are more pessimistic. They rightly or wrongly that of things move “too fast” it will backfire deserving. Others things will backfire on deserving people because the policies if enacted is “too radical”.
You can make the case that it's more practical, more likely to achieve long-term success, etc, but it's hard to deny that justice delayed is justice denied. The entire time an injustice is allowed to continue the greater the harms that result so it's really hard to argue for delaying justice without recognizing that dilemma it places those advocating for delay place themselves in.
But further, part of the problem is that it's impossible to tell good faith and bad faith actors unless one knows the individual well-enough to make that judgment. The bad faith ones use the good faith ones for cover, so if there's concern about being judged, dealing with the people who are using them for cover will do more than complaining the criticism is unfair.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.
27 Aug 2022, 12:09 am
funeralxempire wrote:
But further, part of the problem is that it's impossible to tell good faith and bad faith actors unless one knows the individual well-enough to make that judgment. The bad faith ones use the good faith ones for cover, so if there's concern about being judged, dealing with the people who are using them for cover will do more than complaining the criticism is unfair.
I think you've got your tactics wrong there, if you treat someone acting in bad faith as if they're being genuine, you've wasted a bit of your time, but if you treat someone acting in good faith as if they're being disingenuous, you're at minimum going to piss them off, and potentially make an enemy both for yourself and your cause. Ever notice just how many people that hate wokeness have similar stories about being unfairly accused of things? It's not a coincidence.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
