Page 1 of 9 [ 132 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9  Next

blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 7:12 am

I often wonder if people have the idea that Britain did not earn their place in history, as a small island. It probably seems intimidating that the British were ruling a large portion of the world, from a small island, during the British Empire & its heyday.

The only real advantage that Britain have ever had is being separated by sea, from the rest of the world. Other countries would constantly have to have an army of the proverbial barbarians at the gates to deal with, whilst Britain could see their enemies coming for a long time and from a long way away. This characteristic is ingrained into the British brain, basically - and affects everything from wartime tactics to everyday living.

The truth that I can discern from all of this is that it is British culture that is so powerful, more than anything. Ingrained into educational institutions is a sense of competition, not harmony or “everyone is a winner.” Which is why British universities have always had a sizeable chunk of some of the world’s best universities. It used to be that the United States & Britain were the binary pair of excellence for educational standards. But China & Germany are in that category, too, more so in the past few decades.

The mentality of a British person is to have and live freedom, whilst working for the collective good. Conservative libertarianism culturally, paired with a somewhat socialist economy (though a lot less socialist than most of western Europe). If you do not comply with a British person, you will usually be harmed in some way. Whether that is on the internet or in real life (thinking within a historical context, not now, in the present – this is not aimed at any individual reading this).

The police force in Britain, do not need guns as standard equipment, apart from having a tiny number of special units, because even the loudest, shoutiest person has ingrained into them from birth within British culture – never to lay a finger on someone aggressively unless in self-defence (unless you live in a ghetto, which I do, where you get encouraged to physically assault people at times). This can result in lower IQ persons losing their proverbial s**t, when receiving this instruction from other people.

Personally, I have rejected any form of violence in my lifetime & try to deal with everything bad that comes my way in the most gentle, delicate manner possible.

Other people, from their own minds and in their own culture, see a gun as a threat on a social media video, for example. Is this person going to harm me physically, they might think? A British person sees a gun as their defence against the proverbial barbarians who they look at from afar (again, within a historical context, not now at this moment).

British people are super detailed in an Autistic fashion, on an applied social level as well as a theoretical level, though it might not appear so at first glance (quite the opposite for foreigners, from their perspective).

We look like we are first to the fight, but in fact, our fights always leave an ally or enemy, with the least damage possible, relative to the stakes at hand.

If people wonder how British people have been seemingly able to rampage across continents throughout history, destroying everything. It isn’t because we are barbaric, it’s because we know we will be eaten up by the world if we do not fight for British culture and its influence. Black people love British people and come here out of their own will. They encounter the least racism in Britain versus anywhere in the world, despite propaganda to the contrary.

British culture is literally the number one culture in current date history. Consider the United States, heavily intertwined with Britain and its history, and now the superpower of the world (with China up and coming to overtake). Imperialism, is, unfortunately, a proverbially bloody means to civilization, for the British (and now even China are at it, in a worser and more aggressive way).

This is why imposed authoritarianism fails in Britain (from an outside influence and often even from our own government). For every British person under attack, the British individual becomes like a Neo in the proverbial Matrix of their environment, fighting a thousand enemies (as an approximate number) each, socially, whether online or in person.

This is how the British have resisted invasion, and which is why, despite the Germans having overwhelming advantages in World War two, such as spending many years preparing for war and the British having little warning of the war on a historical timeline scale, we owned them thoroughly.

It has even happened during the past decade. Wokeology has been driven by propaganda, located in places like Russia & China, with the aim of imposing authoritarianism in Britain and supplanting historical, British-aligned Christianity.

This isn’t to brag, it is is just history. That is what people are up against when they try to destroy British culture or a British individual and impose outside authoritarianism of any kind. The proverbial air raid signals start bleeping and all hell breaks loose, even though from afar, nothing seems to be happening.

The British don't want to give up their culture just as much people from other countries do not, the difference being the intensity of this emotion being magnified by about a thousand times for a lot of British people versus the intensity of cultural protective characteristics in other cultures.

Most British people don't want to sell out, even when our own institutions are telling British people what to think in an authoritarian manner, we have to stifle and swallow a powerful anger and our gut instinct is to destroy the threat we perceive in the most civilised way possible.

It's us or them, from a British perspective. Unless you are a sell out.

The United States & Australia, both English speaking countries, are my favourite two countries. I am not ashamed of this. I like India, too and Africa. because of their place in British history.

China and Russia are at the bottom of my list, as you might imagine. Which is why I don't have much sympathy for communism.

But if you are a communist, that doesn't mean I don't like you. People are very nuanced. A person can like another person for a hundred reasons aside from their politics. Which is why wokeologists annoy British people - because they discriminate against British culture, basically.

Happy Friday! Before writing this, I accidentally blasted a cold shower on my head, and then proceeded to clamber out of the shower, almost face planting into the bathroom door handle.

This is the struggle of the British person. Outwardly bumbling, inwardly very complex.


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 7:55 am

This was quite a bizarre post that just seemed to get less and less factual as it went on.

The idea that British people only resort to violence in self-defence is plainly untrue. Every year thousands of British people are beaten, raped, or murdered.

Our police don’t carry guns because we have very low levels of gun ownership and gun crime, not because we are docile. A taser is usually sufficient. Police do carry guns in Northern Ireland, which doesn’t actually have higher rates of violent crime but does have more weapons.

I find it very rare for anyone complaining about “wokeism” and such to actually make strong criticisms, and this is no exception. There are strong criticisms to be made, but “it’s all drummed up by Russia and China” and “they hate British culture” are a long way wide of the mark.

Russia focuses on causing division. They do both attempt to inspire foreign left-wingers and to pose as heightened caricatures of those left-wingers to irritate right-wingers. That is something internet users should be cognisant of. However, it does have to be said that most of their effort goes into posing as right-wingers in order to inspire other right-wingers.

I find it hard to take seriously any claim that “wokesters” or “wokeologists” hate British culture, when the anti-woke brigade are the ones campaigning against the BBC, the royal family, the Church of England, human rights, rule of law, and freedom of association. The barons who wrote the Magna Carta would today be accused of being woke. John Stuart Mill would today be accused of being woke. Elizabeth Fry, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, you know, the people on our money until recently? All woke. Being woke is British culture. You think the Chinese or the Russians care about ethnic minorities, or queer rights?

(Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be against parts of British culture, but forgive me if I don’t find the anti-woke’s claims to be defending British culture against the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the National Trust and the BBC to be particularly compelling.)



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,140

14 Jan 2022, 9:17 am

blitzkrieg wrote:
I often wonder if people have the idea that Britain did not earn their place in history, as a small island. It probably seems intimidating that the British were ruling a large portion of the world, from a small island, during the British Empire & its heyday.

The only real advantage that Britain have ever had is being separated by sea, from the rest of the world. Other countries would constantly have to have an army of the proverbial barbarians at the gates to deal with, whilst Britain could see their enemies coming for a long time and from a long way away. This characteristic is ingrained into the British brain, basically - and affects everything from wartime tactics to everyday living.

The truth that I can discern from all of this is that it is British culture that is so powerful, more than anything. Ingrained into educational institutions is a sense of competition, not harmony or “everyone is a winner.” Which is why British universities have always had a sizeable chunk of some of the world’s best universities. It used to be that the United States & Britain were the binary pair of excellence for educational standards. But China & Germany are in that category, too, more so in the past few decades.

The mentality of a British person is to have and live freedom, whilst working for the collective good. Conservative libertarianism culturally, paired with a somewhat socialist economy (though a lot less socialist than most of western Europe). If you do not comply with a British person, you will usually be harmed in some way. Whether that is on the internet or in real life (thinking within a historical context, not now, in the present – this is not aimed at any individual reading this).

The police force in Britain, do not need guns as standard equipment, apart from having a tiny number of special units, because even the loudest, shoutiest person has ingrained into them from birth within British culture – never to lay a finger on someone aggressively unless in self-defence (unless you live in a ghetto, which I do, where you get encouraged to physically assault people at times). This can result in lower IQ persons losing their proverbial s**t, when receiving this instruction from other people.

Personally, I have rejected any form of violence in my lifetime & try to deal with everything bad that comes my way in the most gentle, delicate manner possible.

Other people, from their own minds and in their own culture, see a gun as a threat on a social media video, for example. Is this person going to harm me physically, they might think? A British person sees a gun as their defence against the proverbial barbarians who they look at from afar (again, within a historical context, not now at this moment).

British people are super detailed in an Autistic fashion, on an applied social level as well as a theoretical level, though it might not appear so at first glance (quite the opposite for foreigners, from their perspective).

We look like we are first to the fight, but in fact, our fights always leave an ally or enemy, with the least damage possible, relative to the stakes at hand.

If people wonder how British people have been seemingly able to rampage across continents throughout history, destroying everything. It isn’t because we are barbaric, it’s because we know we will be eaten up by the world if we do not fight for British culture and its influence. Black people love British people and come here out of their own will. They encounter the least racism in Britain versus anywhere in the world, despite propaganda to the contrary.

British culture is literally the number one culture in current date history. Consider the United States, heavily intertwined with Britain and its history, and now the superpower of the world (with China up and coming to overtake). Imperialism, is, unfortunately, a proverbially bloody means to civilization, for the British (and now even China are at it, in a worser and more aggressive way).

This is why imposed authoritarianism fails in Britain (from an outside influence and often even from our own government). For every British person under attack, the British individual becomes like a Neo in the proverbial Matrix of their environment, fighting a thousand enemies (as an approximate number) each, socially, whether online or in person.

This is how the British have resisted invasion, and which is why, despite the Germans having overwhelming advantages in World War two, such as spending many years preparing for war and the British having little warning of the war on a historical timeline scale, we owned them thoroughly.

It has even happened during the past decade. Wokeology has been driven by propaganda, located in places like Russia & China, with the aim of imposing authoritarianism in Britain and supplanting historical, British-aligned Christianity.

This isn’t to brag, it is is just history. That is what people are up against when they try to destroy British culture or a British individual and impose outside authoritarianism of any kind. The proverbial air raid signals start bleeping and all hell breaks loose, even though from afar, nothing seems to be happening.

The British don't want to give up their culture just as much people from other countries do not, the difference being the intensity of this emotion being magnified by about a thousand times for a lot of British people versus the intensity of cultural protective characteristics in other cultures.

Most British people don't want to sell out, even when our own institutions are telling British people what to think in an authoritarian manner, we have to stifle and swallow a powerful anger and our gut instinct is to destroy the threat we perceive in the most civilised way possible.

It's us or them, from a British perspective. Unless you are a sell out.

The United States & Australia, both English speaking countries, are my favourite two countries. I am not ashamed of this. I like India, too and Africa. because of their place in British history.

China and Russia are at the bottom of my list, as you might imagine. Which is why I don't have much sympathy for communism.

But if you are a communist, that doesn't mean I don't like you. People are very nuanced. A person can like another person for a hundred reasons aside from their politics. Which is why wokeologists annoy British people - because they discriminate against British culture, basically.

Happy Friday! Before writing this, I accidentally blasted a cold shower on my head, and then proceeded to clamber out of the shower, almost face planting into the bathroom door handle.

This is the struggle of the British person. Outwardly bumbling, inwardly very complex.




Britain and British culture has changed a lot in the last 30 years since growing up.

It’s becoming more corrupt and decaying, many of the British institutions mentioned are well past their sell buy date.

The UK has had 5 prime ministers in just 14 years each more useless than the last

The Britain you mention is running on fumes.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,158

14 Jan 2022, 10:42 am

The_Walrus wrote:
This was quite a bizarre post that just seemed to get less and less factual as it went on.

The idea that British people only resort to violence in self-defence is plainly untrue. Every year thousands of British people are beaten, raped, or murdered.

Our police don’t carry guns because we have very low levels of gun ownership and gun crime, not because we are docile. A taser is usually sufficient. Police do carry guns in Northern Ireland, which doesn’t actually have higher rates of violent crime but does have more weapons.

I find it very rare for anyone complaining about “wokeism” and such to actually make strong criticisms, and this is no exception. There are strong criticisms to be made, but “it’s all drummed up by Russia and China” and “they hate British culture” are a long way wide of the mark.

Russia focuses on causing division. They do both attempt to inspire foreign left-wingers and to pose as heightened caricatures of those left-wingers to irritate right-wingers. That is something internet users should be cognisant of. However, it does have to be said that most of their effort goes into posing as right-wingers in order to inspire other right-wingers.

I find it hard to take seriously any claim that “wokesters” or “wokeologists” hate British culture, when the anti-woke brigade are the ones campaigning against the BBC, the royal family, the Church of England, human rights, rule of law, and freedom of association. The barons who wrote the Magna Carta would today be accused of being woke. John Stuart Mill would today be accused of being woke. Elizabeth Fry, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, you know, the people on our money until recently? All woke. Being woke is British culture. You think the Chinese or the Russians care about ethnic minorities, or queer rights?

(Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be against parts of British culture, but forgive me if I don’t find the anti-woke’s claims to be defending British culture against the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the National Trust and the BBC to be particularly compelling.)


You must be quite young to hold those views?



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 1:28 pm

carlos55 wrote:

The UK has had 5 prime ministers in just 14 years each more useless than the last.

That’s not historically unusual. For example, between 1756 and 1770 we had eight different Prime Ministers, one of whom served two terms. Generally terms have lengthened since WWII, but there were five premierships during the 70s for example (including two for Wilson). There have been some Prime Ministers who served for very long times - Lord North, Pitt the Younger, Liverpool, Pelham, Thatcher and Blair, and of course Walpole - but getting beyond five or six years is unusual.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 1:29 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
You must be quite young to hold those views?

My age is neither a great secret, nor relevant.



Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,158

14 Jan 2022, 2:34 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
You must be quite young to hold those views?

My age is neither a great secret, nor relevant.


Ah. It is on your thing below your pic. :D

I was wondering because your viewpoint would be entirely different if you knew what things were like before.
The problem is that in schools today they teach children how things were but what they are teaching was nothing like how it was for most of us. They teach extreme cases either good or bad as if it was how the majority of people lived and they were so far from the truth that the next generation will have some extremely warped ideas about how we lived back then, and it is concerning as it is dictating how we should be living now and ignoring how well things worked in the past.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 5:09 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
This was quite a bizarre post that just seemed to get less and less factual as it went on.

The idea that British people only resort to violence in self-defence is plainly untrue. Every year thousands of British people are beaten, raped, or murdered.

Our police don’t carry guns because we have very low levels of gun ownership and gun crime, not because we are docile. A taser is usually sufficient. Police do carry guns in Northern Ireland, which doesn’t actually have higher rates of violent crime but does have more weapons.

I find it very rare for anyone complaining about “wokeism” and such to actually make strong criticisms, and this is no exception. There are strong criticisms to be made, but “it’s all drummed up by Russia and China” and “they hate British culture” are a long way wide of the mark.

Russia focuses on causing division. They do both attempt to inspire foreign left-wingers and to pose as heightened caricatures of those left-wingers to irritate right-wingers. That is something internet users should be cognisant of. However, it does have to be said that most of their effort goes into posing as right-wingers in order to inspire other right-wingers.

I find it hard to take seriously any claim that “wokesters” or “wokeologists” hate British culture, when the anti-woke brigade are the ones campaigning against the BBC, the royal family, the Church of England, human rights, rule of law, and freedom of association. The barons who wrote the Magna Carta would today be accused of being woke. John Stuart Mill would today be accused of being woke. Elizabeth Fry, Charles Darwin, Adam Smith, you know, the people on our money until recently? All woke. Being woke is British culture. You think the Chinese or the Russians care about ethnic minorities, or queer rights?

(Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be against parts of British culture, but forgive me if I don’t find the anti-woke’s claims to be defending British culture against the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the National Trust and the BBC to be particularly compelling.)


I was making the argument that I made, from a historical context, relative to the rest of the world. The British are very peaceful considering we have a lot of freedom not to be, was the point of the post. Other countries are typically more violent, unless there is strict authoritarianism imposed upon on them, was what I was getting at. Therefore, British people have more inhibitions not to be violent, with the freedom that they have to be violent, within the cultures and societies across Britain.

Yes, Britain is decaying, and that is for a myriad of reasons - i.e, British people having had to lower their standards because of the global economy & Britain's own monetary failures due to the mismanagement of the Bank of England, decreased funding for public services, increased capitalism and social inequality etc.

I have mentioned in a different thread that Russia & China are certainly not woke and I would agree that they are anti-woke. But in my opinion anyway, they promote wokeology and try to steer it as a tool of division, rather than as an ideology functioning for the sake of cultural unity, on a political level.

The BBC is a propaganda channel with a heavily partisan political agenda. The license fee is to be reduced by two-thirds come 2027. Many people have been working hard to bring the BBC down, for good reasons, for many years now.

The BBC do not have a reasonable complaints procedure. I'll give you an example. I personally complained about their content on Youtube & was shadow banned from their channel, for commenting so called anti-woke comments. They were carefully constructed, lengthy comments. It was very Orwellian.

I sent several emails to the BBC complaints team and despite the BBC having the relevant online facility for complaining, they simply told me that the BBC's Youtube channel was managed by Youtube (their parent company being Alphabet inc), which is based in California and that Youtube have only an email address to contact (that is a no reply email address).

So basically, there was no way to complain to the BBC earlier this year when I did. Considering that they are a public, tax-payer funded service, this is completely out of order and unforgiveable. It gives them a license to put out propaganda without recourse, essentially.

Okay, so in a nutshell, in my view, anti-wokeology is creative wokeism & wokeology as put forward by the BBC and Channel 4 and the like is enforced wokeism/wokeology.


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 5:34 pm

Mountain Goat wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Mountain Goat wrote:
You must be quite young to hold those views?

My age is neither a great secret, nor relevant.


Ah. It is on your thing below your pic. :D

I was wondering because your viewpoint would be entirely different if you knew what things were like before.

Possibly, but it would also be entirely different from your viewpoint.

In any case, you've now had two comments and haven't elucidated a single point of disagreement, merely resorting to misplaced condescension. Feel free to say what things you disagree with me upon.

I should also say that you are completely wrong about the state of British education. This is understandable, so please don't feel bad.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 5:35 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
I was making the argument that I made, from a historical context, relative to the rest of the world. The British are very peaceful considering we have a lot of freedom not to be, was the point of the post. Other countries are typically more violent, unless there is strict authoritarianism imposed upon on them, was what I was getting at. Therefore, British people have more inhibitions not to be violent, with the freedom that they have to be violent, within the cultures and societies across Britain.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims, or is it just a personal hunch? Are the British less violent than the Swedish, or the Spanish, or the Slovenians?

blitzkrieg wrote:
The BBC is a propaganda channel with a heavily partisan political agenda. The license fee is to be reduced by two-thirds come 2027. Many people have been working hard to bring the BBC down, for good reasons, for many years now.

This simply isn't true. The BBC has its flaws, but it being "propaganda" or "partisan" are not generally among them - its primary flaw is an obsession with "false balance", where it will give equal attention to two sides of an issue even when one side is clearly wrong.
blitzkrieg wrote:
The BBC do not have a reasonable complaints procedure. I'll give you an example. I personally complained about their content on Youtube & was shadow banned from their channel, for commenting so called anti-woke comments. They were carefully constructed, lengthy comments. It was very Orwellian.

I sent several emails to the BBC complaints team and despite the BBC having the relevant online facility for complaining, they simply told me that the BBC's Youtube channel was managed by Youtube (their parent company being Alphabet inc), which is based in California and that Youtube have only an email address to contact (that is a no reply email address).

So basically, there was no way to complain to the BBC earlier this year when I did. Considering that they are a public, tax-payer funded service, this is completely out of order and unforgiveable. It gives them a license to put out propaganda without recourse, essentially.

So you're accusing the BBC of producing propaganda because you were shadowbanned from YouTube, a corporation entirely separate from the BBC?

What the BBC say is true - the power to do things like shadowbanning lies with YouTube, not with channel owners.

You may as well complain to WrongPlanet about Facebook.
blitzkrieg wrote:
Okay, so in a nutshell, in my view, anti-wokeology is creative wokeism & wokeology as put forward by the BBC and Channel 4 and the like is enforced wokeism/wokeology.

That doesn't really explain anything.



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 5:50 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
I was making the argument that I made, from a historical context, relative to the rest of the world. The British are very peaceful considering we have a lot of freedom not to be, was the point of the post. Other countries are typically more violent, unless there is strict authoritarianism imposed upon on them, was what I was getting at. Therefore, British people have more inhibitions not to be violent, with the freedom that they have to be violent, within the cultures and societies across Britain.

Do you have any evidence to support these claims, or is it just a personal hunch? Are the British less violent than the Swedish, or the Spanish, or the Slovenians?

blitzkrieg wrote:
The BBC is a propaganda channel with a heavily partisan political agenda. The license fee is to be reduced by two-thirds come 2027. Many people have been working hard to bring the BBC down, for good reasons, for many years now.

This simply isn't true. The BBC has its flaws, but it being "propaganda" or "partisan" are not generally among them - its primary flaw is an obsession with "false balance", where it will give equal attention to two sides of an issue even when one side is clearly wrong.
blitzkrieg wrote:
The BBC do not have a reasonable complaints procedure. I'll give you an example. I personally complained about their content on Youtube & was shadow banned from their channel, for commenting so called anti-woke comments. They were carefully constructed, lengthy comments. It was very Orwellian.

I sent several emails to the BBC complaints team and despite the BBC having the relevant online facility for complaining, they simply told me that the BBC's Youtube channel was managed by Youtube (their parent company being Alphabet inc), which is based in California and that Youtube have only an email address to contact (that is a no reply email address).

So basically, there was no way to complain to the BBC earlier this year when I did. Considering that they are a public, tax-payer funded service, this is completely out of order and unforgiveable. It gives them a license to put out propaganda without recourse, essentially.

So you're accusing the BBC of producing propaganda because you were shadowbanned from YouTube, a corporation entirely separate from the BBC?

What the BBC say is true - the power to do things like shadowbanning lies with YouTube, not with channel owners.

You may as well complain to WrongPlanet about Facebook.
blitzkrieg wrote:
Okay, so in a nutshell, in my view, anti-wokeology is creative wokeism & wokeology as put forward by the BBC and Channel 4 and the like is enforced wokeism/wokeology.

That doesn't really explain anything.


The whole point of giving air to people who are clearly wrong is to stimulate intellectual debate. The fact that you think it is okay to decide who is wrong, without a debate about who is wrong, proves my point.


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 5:53 pm

The BBC should have complete control of their own complaints process, it is not okay to have a BBC media channel on a website such as Youtube, which reaches tens of millions whilst simultaenously, not being able to complaint about that content.


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 5:58 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
Okay, so in a nutshell, in my view, anti-wokeology is creative wokeism & wokeology as put forward by the BBC and Channel 4 and the like is enforced wokeism/wokeology.


Quote:
That doesn't really explain anything.


In your mind, perhaps. My point was that there is wokeology paried with freedom or wokeology paired with authoritarianism.


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,995
Location: Reading, England

14 Jan 2022, 6:19 pm

blitzkrieg wrote:
The BBC should have complete control of their own complaints process, it is not okay to have a BBC media channel on a website such as Youtube, which reaches tens of millions whilst simultaenously, not being able to complaint about that content.

In this instance, you're not complaining about the content, you're complaining about having comments removed for breaking YouTube's TOS. That isn't the BBC's fault.

blitzkrieg wrote:
blitzkrieg wrote:
Okay, so in a nutshell, in my view, anti-wokeology is creative wokeism & wokeology as put forward by the BBC and Channel 4 and the like is enforced wokeism/wokeology.


Quote:
That doesn't really explain anything.


In your mind, perhaps. My point was that there is wokeology paried with freedom or wokeology paired with authoritarianism.

Well, for starters you haven't explained what "wokeology" is. It's also very difficult to see how the BBC or Channel 4 could reasonably be considered "authoritarian".



blitzkrieg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jun 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,537
Location: In a square sphere of abstract, nuanced thought.

14 Jan 2022, 6:27 pm

The BBC forcibly takes money from the British people to fund content that has little influence from the British people outside of London. So basically, outside of London, a lot of people are scratching their heads at the content shown on the BBC.

Wokeology explanation:

[youtube]


_________________
Cultural Conservative, Economic Socialist.
Christian (LGBTQ+ affirming).
Abstract & critical thinker. 2nd wave feminist.
All humans are equal before God.
Freedom, is the sovereign right, of America.
On vacation


Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 771
Location: AspinatorLand

14 Jan 2022, 7:11 pm

This is a perspective from the other side of the pond. I was taught England became a sea power because that was the only way an island nation could survive. They had to ensure the sea lanes were kept open; it was a matter of practicality. I am not qualified to talk about British culture as I have not lived in England nor known anybody from there. I was also taught the American civil rights movement really started in England. When black soldiers in WWII were in England they were treated as equals; they came home to America, they weren't.