Racism Part two

[Indigo]

31 minutes ago, wishywashy said:

https://houseofv.ghost.io/the-one-about-monchi/

James Rushton wrote a piece about the whole Monchi racism discourse. It's very well put, imo.

Saw that earlier, was a well-researched piece as well and gives some actual tangible context to some worrying aspects of Spanish culture as opposed to thinking "it's a parade based on positive vibes so it's fine".

Essentially makes the sane point that Monchi shouldn't be dog-piled on and the worst assumed of him because of this single act, and equally nobody should be slated as a "woke moralist" or whatever the buzz word is for thinking that regardless of the history of a festival, you shouldn't really be doing that kind of thing in this day and age.

[lexicon]

37 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

Excellent post.

I honestly think the current desire to divide everyone by race, culture, belief etc, and have them turn against each other is ultimately divisive and will (and is) causing more problems than it purports to try and solve.

its weird how its gong i think, especially as if i look back to my own youth, the push was to try and see everyone for "who they are as a person", and not for the colour of their skin (or different culture, or different belief etc).

I agree with regard to your comment about finding a middle ground, because both the far left and far right of the argument are nuts imo, but for different reasons, ironically, the far left breeds the far right, and visa versa, we need to work back towards the middle.

I accept others may see it differently, but thats my opinion anyways.

 

 

There's nothing current about it, that's what the right wing have always done. Push an 'us vs. them' narrative, create a scape goat for all of society's problems and pretend to be the solution. The current flavour that the morons wang on about is 'woke culture' as if it's a bad thing to be aware of discrimination. 

The people who don't like racism are not the problem. There aren't good people on both sides. 

[rjw63]

1 hour ago, Tomaszk said:

It's very simple. Hate everyone equally.

That's been my football mantra since the 70's, easily covers everything else!

[CVByrne]

2 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

You'd be shocked to know how many black people ( especially African Americans ) are on the other end, where they themselves want segregation and just hate white people, regardless.

The issue is, extremes create other extremes, as with many other issues today.

You open the road for extremism when you entertain everything being offensive or cancellable. Some people genuinely have mental issues and we allow them to push narrative's.

I often debate with black folks who, without realising it ( Or purposely so ) , they are creating the exact culture and movement they claim to hate.

Possibly a controversial take, but I feel you actually create even more racists when you move with pure aggression and hatred.

Making every white person feel like they should apologise for things purely for being white is where we are heading

The world is strange.

I'm hoping all of these extremes are just pendulum swings until we all find a middle.ground in the world.

Great post. If we could just remember to learn to tolerate opinions and behaviour we don't personally agree with or like. Tolerance is what we need not division and trying to control speech and other people through intimidation. 

I always have a perspective born from my upbringing and where I'm from. Dublin in the 1980s where everyone was poor and everyone was white. Id know someone who was a higher threat to me by their behaviour and how they were dressed. That's millions of years of evolution to be aware of danger. 

It has nothing to do with race as there was only one race of people at the time in Dublin. So when people transpose the same exact thing (a socio economic problem) to other countries with a racial mix they turn it into racism because lets say black population in America for example are from poorer areas. 

But how can people split a from b. What's a person who is racist from a person who is identifying people by dress and behaviour who are a higher threat to them than others. 

I listen to 3 Guardian Podcasts and I listen to Ben Shapiro. I try absorb the broad spectrum of opinions on topics. It's important to try understand things from other people's perspectives to understand people you disagree with aren't evil or hateful most of the time. They just see things differently.

We need a return of tolerance of others. Not organised intimidation of others. 

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

There's nothing current about it, that's what the right wing have always done. Push an 'us vs. them' narrative, create a scape goat for all of society's problems and pretend to be the solution. The current flavour that the morons wang on about is 'woke culture' as if it's a bad thing to be aware of discrimination. 

The people who don't like racism are not the problem. There aren't good people on both sides. 

I mean - that can describe plenty of people on the left too - e.g. it's pretty difficult to see Marxism as anything other than what you describe, except the scapegoats are just loosely defined capitalists. And as history shows, the definition of "capitalist" tends to just be whoever the Marxists want to get rid of at the time.

Also, the second sentence feels like a straw man. Clearly nobody who likes racism is good, but there are people who don't like racism that are bad. Although I feel misguided is probably a better word to use than "bad".

The move from a universal standard of racism ("don't treat someone differently because their colour of their skin") to one where we're trying to break up society and culture into tiny walled-off gardens that only certain people are allowed to be part of (again very poorly defined as to who qualifies) is not a good direction to be travelling in, imo.

[Rustibrooks]

One thing that has puzzled me is how the definition of woke has been hijacked (not judging anyone that uses it in the way it’s been used today). When African Americans started using the term woke it was just to bring awareness to pretty much anything. Nothing political about it until recently. 

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, MotoMkali said:

when 10 men sit at a table with a nazi. There are 11 nazis at the table.  

Mo Mowlam and the Good Friday Peace Agreement say hi!

 

[CVByrne]

But why are we focussing on the differences between people and not the fact that as a west society we share an incredible amount on common. Identity politics is a way of gaining support for your side by creating an internal enemy.

I feel division was crystallised with Brexit and the election of Trump. Who was a moron but what did he actually do as President legislatively other than a tax cut? Absolutely nothing other than grand stand. His danger was undermining the democratic system by refusing to accept defeat. The fact he won an election legitimately 4 years prior wasn't a crime. 

We need to just end the idea that people who agree with 99.9% of our outlook on life and ways of government are the enemy because we disagree on the 0.1% of things. Disagreement afforded by the society our parents and their parents have built.

[lexicon]

1 hour ago, Panto_Villan said:

I mean - that can describe plenty of people on the left too - e.g. it's pretty difficult to see Marxism as anything other than what you describe, except the scapegoats are just loosely defined capitalists. And as history shows, the definition of "capitalist" tends to just be whoever the Marxists want to get rid of at the time.

Also, the second sentence feels like a straw man. Clearly nobody who likes racism is good, but there are people who don't like racism that are bad. Although I feel misguided is probably a better word to use than "bad".

The move from a universal standard of racism ("don't treat someone differently because their colour of their skin") to one where we're trying to break up society and culture into tiny walled-off gardens that only certain people are allowed to be part of (again very poorly defined as to who qualifies) is not a good direction to be travelling in, imo.

Only on the very far left where horseshoe theory is essentially applied. 

And this 'walled off' thing you're talking about sounds like the right-wing talking point that they're pushing, does it even really exist? Most people just live their lives and get on, don't they? 

[Rolta]

2 hours ago, Rustibrooks said:

One thing that has puzzled me is how the definition of woke has been hijacked (not judging anyone that uses it in the way it’s been used today). When African Americans started using the term woke it was just to bring awareness to pretty much anything. Nothing political about it until recently. 

The wind up press love a go-to phrase. SJW/woke/snowflakes. It feels as if the most bad faith of this particular group have gone into overdrive recently, but then it was probably always so. It's a great way of dismissing outright anyone who doesn't conform to what used to be a bit of a fringe hard right outlook, and it's only growing in reach. And before I go on, I know a lot of people who use 'woke' aren't hard right by any means—but the phrase is pushed most rabidly and most constantly by that group. I'm talking about their influence on popular culture. The power of it spreads out into the more general discourse. I should define hard right too—I mean people from the right who aren't interested in compromise, in 'one-nation ideas', who don't see value in discussing centrist or centre-left positions.

Sure, I know there are equivalent words on the other side of the political spectrum, but there's nothing comparable about the reach of the vague catch-all term 'woke' from this hard right—peddalled by presidential candidates, promising to crush 'wokism' (whatever the f that means) for example, British MPs from a very non-moderate Conservative party, relentless posts from high-profile Twitter people for example, and absolute swathes more of it online and in 90% of the right wing press—you could practically say that the Mail, Sun, Express, Telegraph, GBNews, and TalkTV or whatever it's called barely have much else to offer than constant outrage porn against anything 'woke'—and by 'woke' they mean anything that doesn't conform to their outlook. Ironic, because that's probably one of their definitions of 'woke'. Ironic but not surprising though. Over-simplification and undermining people who have different ideas makes money, furthers careers, and wins power. Outrage is always a vote winner. It always has been. This is the relentless othering that, for me, poisons the discourse. We can disagree—right, left, centist or whatever—we are always going to disagree, and everyone is capable of over-generalising and over-simplifying and throwing insults no matter who they are, but there is no more heinous example out there than the absurd overuse of that word, and there is no other group with such media reach in order to make such a phenomenon possible. There are equivalents, sure—gammon for one, but come on you don't get politicians and pages of newspapers dedicated towards and demonising gammons. The scale is incomparible.

I find it ironic that today, with the Monchi debate, the couple of people who were accusing people of being woke seemed to be the actual ones being 'woke' in the way they were pleading complexity to the situation (as I did from my position of living in Spain), that the situation itself, and people's opinions on the Monchi stuff, weren't as black and white as they seemed—that responses should be more nuanced. That's being woke. That's actually what it means.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Rolta

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, lexicon said:

Only on the very far left where horseshoe theory is essentially applied. 

And this 'walled off' thing you're talking about sounds like the right-wing talking point that they're pushing, does it even really exist? Most people just live their lives and get on, don't they? 

Nah, it's visible all along the political spectrum. Take for example the issue of housing / rental affordability - it's not a particularly easy problem to solve, and doing so requires seriously engaging with the structural issues and identifying a solution (which will almost certainly be politically unpopular). So there's plenty of people on the right who will just lazily blame immigrants for the problems, and there's plenty of people on the left who will just lazily blame landlords. And so on. Politics of every stripe is full of people willing to blame your problems on someone else.

The "walled-off culture" I was talking about is evident any time someone talks about cultural appropriation. You see lots of progressive activists talking about it, but I get the impression it's not widely accepted outside those circles and indeed is pretty politically toxic - I think most people just consider it needlessly divisive, and it goes against the idea that people should be treated equally irrespective of the colour of their skin. But it does definitely exist, and there were elements of it creeping into the Monchi debate earlier.

But that's kinda the point I'm making, I guess. The person you were replying to made a similar point, and it read like your reply was trying to say people shouldn't call out progressives for overstepping the bounds of anti-racism. But personally I think it's important to do that if you want society to end up being a more equal place.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, Rolta said:

Sure, I know there are equivalent words on the other side of the political spectrum, but there's nothing comparable about the reach of the vague catch-all term 'woke' from this hard right

I think "woke" has exploded as a term because it's used by both the left and the right. Terms like gammon or snowflake were only ever used as derogatory terms, but imo woke is interesting because it's either an awful insult or badge of pride depending on who you talk to.

Edited June 17, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[Chindie]

Woke has just become a buzzword for things 'conservatives' don't like.

They can't provide a definition of what it is, but they know they don't like it.

[CVByrne]

11 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Woke has just become a buzzword for things 'conservatives' don't like.

They can't provide a definition of what it is, but they know they don't like it.

Like we can't put a definition on what a woman is.

It's all become ridiculous 

[mjmooney]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Woke has just become a buzzword for things 'conservatives' don't like.

They can't provide a definition of what it is, but they know they don't like it.

 

[Seat68]

37 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Like we can't put a definition on what a woman is.

It's all become ridiculous 

We? You. I get by ok. 

[Chindie]

36 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Like we can't put a definition on what a woman is.

It's all become ridiculous 

I don't think they're similar at all.

Woke has become a buzzword whereby it means different things to different people and the concept has gained notoriety for some groups for who just decry everything they don't like about anything progressive as 'woke'. Fun example - the recent release of Street Fighter 6 was shouted down as woke by some because it has a new simplified control option, a flexible character creator and a minor non-binary ish character. Ridiculous.

Whereas the definition of woman has become more complicated, but that's about it, and people disagreeing are outliers and arseholes. And for the average person or doesn't really matter at all.

[Rolta]

2 hours ago, CVByrne said:

Like we can't put a definition on what a woman is.

It's all become ridiculous 

How many people are actually imposing that on you? I'd wager you haven't met a single person. Yet woke as a catch all pejorative hammered home article after article, day after day, by presidential wannabes and cabinet MPs, and a vast, broad, biggest section of the media. It's incomparable, for me, and I'd even argue this very false equivalence shows how powerful a thing the word 'woke' has become in winding people up and dividing people.

I doubt you're against listening to other people's points of view, and I imagine most people who fear 'the wokening' would actually be pretty open to at least listening to someone who feels trans or gender neutral or whatever, in the name of understanding. But that's not on the cards, first because the relative population of trans or non binary people is very low, and second because nobody in the media, the loudest part of it, the part the makes the most issue out of this topic (and makes the most money and sway from weaponising it), are remotely interested in listening to anyone who it actually affects. 

 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Rolta

[Follyfoot]

18 hours ago, Tomaszk said:

It's very simple. Hate everyone equally.

As JR once described the Undertaker, “he is an equal opportunity choke slammer “

[CVByrne]

13 hours ago, Chindie said:

I don't think they're similar at all.

Woke has become a buzzword whereby it means different things to different people and the concept has gained notoriety for some groups for who just decry everything they don't like about anything progressive as 'woke'. Fun example - the recent release of Street Fighter 6 was shouted down as woke by some because it has a new simplified control option, a flexible character creator and a minor non-binary ish character. Ridiculous.

Whereas the definition of woman has become more complicated, but that's about it, and people disagreeing are outliers and arseholes. And for the average person or doesn't really matter at all.

My point was just both sides of this has become ridiculous.