Woke Madness

[Winston OBoogie]

I was reading about the 3%-rs and NFAC yesterday.  Unnerving paramilitary fringe stuff. What's strange is they share similar views on governance and liberty.

Politics sometimes makes for some very strange bedfellows indeed!
In the UK, during Brexit, George Galloway and Nigel Farage campaigned on the same bill in favour of leaving the EU.    I would *not* have seen that coming before Brexit reared its head. 

 

[crazydoc]

 
That is a false equivalency and a pretty damn ugly suggestion.

I guess this is what passes for identity politics these days. Have a better Sunday.

JR

You and I have had different experiences. "It is what it is."

 

[pucho812]

I was returning in kind.  I was called exactly the same by Pucho in another thread.    No one said anything at that time so I considered the term fair game.

Edit - I found it:
 
If his remark to me is intended as jest, yet mine to him as unacceptable,  perhaps Pucho could explain the rules to me.

In the meantime I'll find some other term  to use and edit my post.

I am not sure what rules there are to explain. I didn't find the term boy insulting and certainly didn't  toss it out to be insulting when I used it.  You also seem to have missed my joke when I referenced about  catching me after I went swimming.  If I need to explain that to you, I will gladly do so.  I can only assume some of the local colloquialisms I have used are lost in translation. 
However there are more important  things to discuss, as in the video I posted from a lawyer about the law.  Would you like a second one by a second lawyer discussing the law?  You will note much like the first time I posted a video, I have not said any opinion on what is and what is not.  I am only interested in what  Law's apply or do not apply.  I only mentioned my opinion later in that based on how the law works, the prosecution will have a hard time trying to prove a premeditated murder one aka first degree murder.  But that is what they charged him with. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7SooO03bJ8

 

[Winston OBoogie]

  I didn't find the term boy insulting and certainly didn't  toss it out to be insulting when I used it.  You also seem to have missed my joke when I referenced about  catching me after I went swimming. 

Pucho,
no I didn't actually think you would have found the term 'boy'  insulting which is why I used it, and I did get your swimming joke 

The issue was that  L´Andratté had said it was not an acceptable term so, I  2nd guessed it and decided I should err on precaution and change it just in case. 

On the videos -  I haven't watched the 2nd one you just posted but,  only because,  I think the only thing that matters now is what happens in the trial, should there be one.   
There are questions  we cannot even speculate the answers to unless we are also privy to all the 'discovery', and only the prosecution and the defence team will have this.    Therefore...  we should just let the process happen.    Fair enough?   

 

[midwayfair]

I didn't find the term boy insulting

Context is always important, but regardless it's probably not a great term to toss around when you can't see who you're speaking to or when people other than the addressee are reading.

When I was serving at Lackland AFB in the early 2000s, I did a Foghorn Leghorn impression during some conversation. I used the word "boy" during the impression, which I learned right then was something people in the south used for a couple centuries as derogatory toward black men. I went to public school in Baltimore, which is only technically in the south and only if you squint, and never heard anyone use it. (Not "I never heard anyone use it as an insult", I mean "I never heard anyone use it," period. Evidently for a damn good reason.) What's kind of amazing to me thinking about it now is that I was the only person in that conversation didn't know that. I just thought it was some southern colloquialism and I doubt Foghorn ever actually used it even when addressing the Chicken Hawk, he probably always called him "son," which I have heard people use benignly. I haven't used it since when addressing a person and my life is no worse for it.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

OK, I get it.  Point taken. 

Where I grew up ,at worse,  "Boy" was what the teacher you hated in class called you.  Or a stern uncle. 
 
Since Pucho himself had used it, this is how I took it,  and also how I  meant it.  But I will refrain.

 

[iturnknobs]

PS: IMO You sound a little prejudiced (even racist?)

Opinion, no. Fact, yes. I've been saying I'm ashamed to be white since 2015 and been explaining myself outwardly since providing audio services for the Trump rally at UIC Pavilion in 2016. Never been so disgusted or ashamed to be socially connected to that subset of society. Feel free to stand proud. I cannot.

 

[midwayfair]

OK, I get it.  Point taken. 

Where I grew up ,at worse,  "Boy" was what the teacher you hated in class called you.  Or a stern uncle. 
 
Since Pucho himself had used it, this is how I took it,  and also how I  meant it.  But I will refrain.

Certain parts of America, screwing up the English language for everyone since the 1600s.TM

I know you're British, and I know Pucho is Californian. I absolutely wouldn't expect either of you to be using it as a derogatory term toward each other. I just wanted to provide a reason to reconsider its usage around some Americans (I think this board's membership probably skews pretty heavily American overall).

 

[pucho812]

Context is always important, but regardless it's probably not a great term to toss around when you can't see who you're speaking to or when people other than the addressee are reading.

When I was serving at Lackland AFB in the early 2000s, I did a Foghorn Leghorn impression during some conversation. I used the word "boy" during the impression, which I learned right then was something people in the south used for a couple centuries as derogatory toward black men. I went to public school in Baltimore, which is only technically in the south and only if you squint, and never heard anyone use it. (Not "I never heard anyone use it as an insult", I mean "I never heard anyone use it," period. Evidently for a damn good reason.) What's kind of amazing to me thinking about it now is that I was the only person in that conversation didn't know that. I just thought it was some southern colloquialism and I doubt Foghorn ever actually used it even when addressing the Chicken Hawk, he probably always called him "son," which I have heard people use benignly. I haven't used it since when addressing a person and my life is no worse for it.

When I am in session at the studio I do foghorn leghorn  to lighten the mood. For example, I use some classic phrases like " About as sharp as a bowling ball" or " that's about as useful as a pocket on the back of a shirt"  it can be done in a manor that is fun/funny without being derogatory, just start in with the "I say I say"  and proceed.  Other useful funny things are referring to the second engineers as "belvedere" you may remember belvedere as one of the side characters in loony toons, he was a dog and often tasked with doing things. The character who owned him would often cry out for his beloved dog  " Oh belvedere"  and sometimes "belvedere come here boy"  and then followed with some sort of  task or something. we use the  first one and it can get people laughing and keeping the mood light, especially if you use the colonel shuffle(the character who owns belvedere" voice.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

I really hope you do not resist arrest...

Hey, how about this as advice for black people if they're going to be out and about and there's a chance they might encounter cops:

Once they know they're going to be out and about,  make sure to go out and about with a white guy.   

 

[L´Andratté]

Sorry to cause awfulness, beware the power of projection...

This thread strayed a bit from it´s topic. If anyone cares I would like to ask those, that, like me
are striving for a change towards a more just, equal and less ecologically destructive way of life,
if you too perceive a "woke madness". A significant part of the movement which is going too far, damaging the "cause" for feeling superior and more virtuous, lured by the power that comes with changing
social interrelation? Apart from what is painted on the wall by right wing fear mongering...

 

[midwayfair]

Sorry to cause awfulness, beware the power of projection...

This thread strayed a bit from it´s topic. If anyone cares I would like to ask those, that, like me
are striving for a change towards a more just, equal and less ecologically destructive way of life,
if you too perceive a "woke madness". A significant part of the movement which is going too far, damaging the "cause" for feeling superior and more virtuous, lured by the power that comes with changing
social interrelation? Apart from what is painted on the wall by right wing fear mongering...

There are fringe people everywhere at every moment in history, but sanctimoniousness is hardly restricted to fringes.

 

[boji]

sanctimoniousness

More seriously, herd immunity in the ideological sense, which contributes to the madness of crowds.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You and I have had different experiences. "It is what it is."

I repeat I do not argue with people about me.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

The "Unite The Right" rally in Charlottesville. 

Remember -  "... very fine people on both sides"

Yes, I remember how that comment was taken completely out of context... President Trump was talking about the people on both sides of the debate about removing historic statues.  Not the white supremacists rioting, but media and dishonest reportage spun it to suggest that he was supporting the bad behavior. President Trump publicly clarified his statement but media conveniently ignored it because it did not support their false narrative.

Not only did (fake) media never correct the false association, but VP Biden recently repeated the slur that has become established democratic folk lore inside their positive feedback echo chamber. Where are all the fact checkers to correct Biden..? MIA.   

You guys seem to be having too much fun, and I won't waste my time and energy on this, as I expect it to only get worse between now and the election.  Party on....

JR 

 

[boji]

fwiw, I said "yeah, no"  out of reflex to the image of bad actors and to the notion that all extremists are equal.

I've long since forsworn using the media's selection of people's words to know what people actually think. :/

 

[Matador]

President Trump was talking about the people on both sides of the debate about removing historic statues.

There you go with that mind reading again!  I warned you before:  once you start, it is a forbidden elixir that you'll not be able to set down again. 

Back to "wokeness":  "woke" exists on a spectrum (just like everything else).  On one end, you have the people who say whatever they want, about whomever they want, without any regard for how their words impact the people listening.  On the other end, you have the "social justice" warrior caricature, where saying "I really like to shop at Safeway" will be lambasted as supporting a corporation that used a cartoon character of a shopping bag as it's mascot back in the 1980's, because we all know shopping bags are racist.

I would argue there are likely far more of the former than the latter, and that if you need a rubric for deciding what you should be outraged over, just ask yourself:  are the people suffering an injustice still alive and suffering today?  Because if they are, perhaps you should keep it to yourself.  If you are alienating the very people who would be supprting your idea, it's probably not an effective

Speaking only for myself:  I always calibrate my outrage on behalf of a group by reading/listening to how that group is reacting to the outrage.  If the target isn't outraged, why should I be?  And the inverse, if the target is upset, why am I not?  This goes double if I'm not part of (and can never be part of) said group (e.g. women, African Americans, etc).

 

[midwayfair]

There you go with that mind reading again!  I warned you before:  once you start, it is a forbidden elixir that you'll not be able to set down again. 

Don't think it's really mind reading. JR is interpreting the context, though, so I wouldn't say that all of the reporting was taking the quote out of context.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

That's a transcript of the press conference with over a minute of conversation on both sides of it, not an article or opinion piece. People should probably read it.

Basically Trump said that most of the counterprotestors were there to protest taking down the statue (which is the context that starts the line of questions and is what JR appears to be talking about), but the "both sides" comes much later in the conference when he is talking about hatred and blame on both sides, specifically after saying that people on "the left" came at the counterprotestors with clubs. Then a little bit later he goes back to talking about the people who were there to protest the statue.

As usual, President Trump is not a clear speaker and it allows people to parse much of what they want out of it, mainly because his statements are disjointed, so it's very hard to follow who he's talking about at any given moment in that conference. The president only mentions the protestors as having clubs, but does not mention that the counterprotestors had clubs and other weapons too. (Wikipedia is about the most neutral source I can get on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally.) It's correct that there were protestors on both sides who were armed, and it's also no doubt correct that many of the counterprotestors didn't showed up itching for a fight.  Blaming both sides for the violence is insensitive considering the outcome, which is pretty much par for the course for the president.

But again, he's not a clear speaker. And due to the insensitivity of the statement and the president's relationship with racist groups as vocal supporters of his (you can argue that their numbers are small, but they are f***ing loud) and previous and continued general flirtation with racists (before anyone objects: He was the highest profile pusher of the Birther narrative, which was inherently racist, regardless of his personal intentions in his heart of hearts. That's just the most obvious example), it's very easy to read that transcript, even with all the context, and still get the impression that the president was really trying very hard to push some of the blame for the murder onto the victim, within a minute of calling the murder an act of terrorism. In the reporting I read of that statement, the victim blaming inherent in even getting to the point where he said those words was the issue with it.

The better statement would have been something along the lines of, "It was a terrorist attack by a Neo-Nazi, we're crafting a statement to the victim's family, and the FBI is investigating the attack. We'll release a statement to the press once the investigation has concluded. Thank you for coming." Defines action, calls the attack terrorism (his words), promises future information, doesn't speculate about blame.

 

[Winston OBoogie]

Yes, I remember how that comment was taken completely out of context..

Trump's comment in my post could  almost be an aside.

Simply put, you stated there were no fascists in the US .    So I showed you a picture of some fascists in the US.


In fact, right-wing white supremacy is at the highest threat level for domestic terrorism, at the same level as ISIS.

But don't take my word for it, read your own governments DHS handbook on terrorism.

Funnily enough, Antifa isn't even mentioned in that same handbook. 

 

[hodad]

Don't think it's really mind reading. JR is interpreting the context, though, so I wouldn't say that all of the reporting was taking the quote out of context.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

That's a transcript of the press conference with over a minute of conversation on both sides of it, not an article or opinion piece. People should probably read it.

I guess people should read it.  Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to parse.  In general, it might be fair to say that snippets of Trump's comments are quite often pulled out of the larger context--in positive and negative ways--simply because it's so hard to figure out what the f()ck he's saying.
Interesting that his justification for waiting to make a statement was the need to get all the facts, and yet when the reporter mentions David Duke being there, Trump says he didn't know that.  So all that extra time for fact-gathering was apparently for nought.