Politics Random, Random

[ponchi101]

Ahhh, "wokeism", where you're punished for viewing history through an honest historical lens. If you choose not to view America as it actually is and/or was, that's your choice to be ignorant, and that's how you'll be viewed, ignorant. A significant portion of America is too lazy and too unambiguously educated to even get close to being woke. They are the ones who complain about "wokeism.

That is where we disagree. You don't see people honestly seeing America as it was historically. You see America as compared to modern standards, not the values and morals of the times at which America made those choices. And you see America as the sole country where these practices happened, when they were practiced in almost all cultures.
Maher, be him garbage or not, is viewed by a lot of people. So are Chappelle and Gervais, and the people that watch them vote.
Wokeism is so strange that it has now morphed from a label that its own followers coined, to a believe that the label is insulting. So, a lot of people just don't like the movement. And, again, they vote. And as the democrats are intrinsically linked to the term, be that right or wrong, some people will vote for Tiny.
Otherwise, this election is a landslide for the dems.

[Suliso]

This is true in Western Europe as well. I'm a left of a center type of guy, but really the far left is pushing some nonsensical stuff around here too. Not the the same stuff as in US, but crazy anyway.

[skatingfan]

That is where we disagree. You don't see people honestly seeing America as it was historically. You see America as compared to modern standards, not the values and morals of the times at which America made those choices. And you see America as the sole country where these practices happened, when they were practiced in almost all cultures.

This talking point is beneath you.

Maher, be him garbage or not, is viewed by a lot of people. So are Chappelle and Gervais, and the people that watch them vote.

That doesn't make them right - saying things to get attention works well in our society.

Wokeism is so strange that it has now morphed from a label that its own followers coined, to a believe that the label is insulting. So, a lot of people just don't like the movement. And, again, they vote. And as the democrats are intrinsically linked to the term, be that right or wrong, some people will vote for Tiny.

The use of the term woke dates back to the early 20th century and was primarily used by black Americans to describe their struggle for civil rights. The term was than co-opted by the far-right to dismiss claims of racism, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia, and blame the victims in order to maintain political power, and keep their base sufficiently angry, and motivated to vote.

Otherwise, this election is a landslide for the dems.

A significant portion of the American electorate was never going to vote for a woman of mixed race, no matter what her policies were.

[Suliso]

A landslide in American political context is 60-40. That might still be possible under very favorable circumstances (not today).

[Oploskoffie]

As another Western European, all I'm really seeing in my country is the same as in too many other places: parties from the "right" being smarter, faster and more agressve in their use of online channels like X, IG and TikTok to spread blatant misinformation/lies, to play the victim whenever something doesn't go their way, gleefully insult those who don't agree with them, make the press out to be the enemy and, most importantly, target younger voters. If they don't win in this election cycle, then their chances are even better four years down the line as more of their now prime target demographic comes of voting age. I've always said we're about ten years behind what is going wrong in America and thus far, that continues to seem to be the case. With a dash of Russian influence thrown in. I'm beyond sick of seeing what is being normalized and, honestly, dread the future and am bittterly disappointed by the predictability of it all.

[Owendonovan]

I don't call myself woke, society does. Again, I feel no need to apologize or really even defend my fact based truths about history, so I won't.

You don't see people honestly seeing America as it was historically.
You see America as compared to modern standards, not the values and morals of the times at which (white)America made those choices.
Don't minimize my empathy, please.

And you see America as the sole country where these practices happened, when they were practiced in almost all cultures.
I've never intimated that. I'm fully aware of the many advantages taken over people of lesser means globally.

Agree with Satingfan here, this feels beneath you.

[ponchi101]

I guess I should have not said YOU as that sounds personal. I should have expanded that into THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA THAT FOLLOW THIS LINE OF THOUGHT. It was not meant as YOU SKATINGFAN or YOU OWENDONOVAN.
The rest of it. No, it is not beneath me. It is the gist of what I get from talking to people from around the world. The Argentinians that I talk to, the Colombians, the several nationalities that are in the boat I am currently on. The gist of SAPIENS by Yuval Harari.
Of course some people in the USA would have never voted, and never will, for a mixed race woman. For that matter, a portion of the American public will never again vote for a white heterosexual male, given a second option. Those two extremes are not useful, as they are not judging the person for his/her ideas, they are judging them for what they are and what they are not. But, as Suliso pointed out, a landslide in a USA election right now is 60-40 (I would say 55-45).
Take away some of the ideas that the general public consider woke (be that right or wrong), and Kamala gets to the 50%.

[Suliso]

Me and ponchi are just a bit less to the left of the center than some of you. That's all really...

One does need to consider a local situation and the specific candidate. In US I'd vote for Harris and in Argentina for Millei and I see no contradiction there at all.

[mmmm8]

Ahhh, "wokeism", where you're punished for viewing history through an honest historical lens. If you choose not to view America as it actually is and/or was, that's your choice to be ignorant, and that's how you'll be viewed, ignorant. A significant portion of America is too lazy and too unambiguously educated to even get close to being woke. They are the ones who complain about "wokeism.

That is where we disagree. You don't see people honestly seeing America as it was historically. You see America as compared to modern standards, not the values and morals of the times at which America made those choices. And you see America as the sole country where these practices happened, when they were practiced in almost all cultures.
Maher, be him garbage or not, is viewed by a lot of people. So are Chappelle and Gervais, and the people that watch them vote.
Wokeism is so strange that it has now morphed from a label that its own followers coined, to a believe that the label is insulting. So, a lot of people just don't like the movement. And, again, they vote. And as the democrats are intrinsically linked to the term, be that right or wrong, some people will vote for Tiny.
Otherwise, this election is a landslide for the dems.

You kind of say it yourself, the idea of being woke which was only a valid concept (and primarily only for American black people) until it got transformed into a meaningless scaremongering term. And there is just simply no "movement." And yes, a lot of people watch Maher and also a lot of people love Trump, doesn't make their ideas worthwhile, even if many support them.

To your point about modern vs historical standards, you could say that about any human rights issue. Are you "woke" if you don't think tennis should sell out to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights abuses. Why is noone referring to people opposing Uyghur enslavement in China as "wokenism?" After all, 200 years ago, slavery was a-ok.

I do agree with you that the "marketing" for the right is better than for the left - it's always easier to cater to the basest instincts and to fear.

[mmmm8]

This is true in Western Europe as well. I'm a left of a center type of guy, but really the far left is pushing some nonsensical stuff around here too. Not the the same stuff as in US, but crazy anyway.

Can I ask what? Not being obtuse, just really we don't get good coverage here because of the threat in Europe from the far right. Is it just the regular pseudo-socialist stuff?

[mmmm8]

I guess I should have not said YOU as that sounds personal. I should have expanded that into THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA THAT FOLLOW THIS LINE OF THOUGHT. It was not meant as YOU SKATINGFAN or YOU OWENDONOVAN.
The rest of it. No, it is not beneath me. It is the gist of what I get from talking to people from around the world. The Argentinians that I talk to, the Colombians, the several nationalities that are in the boat I am currently on. The gist of SAPIENS by Yuval Harari.
Of course some people in the USA would have never voted, and never will, for a mixed race woman. For that matter, a portion of the American public will never again vote for a white heterosexual male, given a second option. Those two extremes are not useful, as they are not judging the person for his/her ideas, they are judging them for what they are and what they are not. But, as Suliso pointed out, a landslide in a USA election right now is 60-40 (I would say 55-45).
Take away some of the ideas that the general public consider woke (be that right or wrong), and Kamala gets to the 50%.

I think you're missing that a portion of the US that would never vote for a mixed race woman is a very significant portion, whereas the percentage that would never again vote for a white male is absolutely miniscule.

[mmmm8]

Me and ponchi are just a bit less to the left of the center than some of you. That's all really...

One does need to consider a local situation and the specific candidate. In US I'd vote for Harris and in Argentina for Millei and I see no contradiction there at all.

I don't think so, or maybe on a miniscule scale. I think we are all actually pretty close politically. I think all of us have fallen prey to precisely some of that brainwashing marketing that we are discussing, and we are just on different sides of that semantics divide. I think especially if you think of Harris and Millei, the difference is around economics (and i don't think it's that big ideologically, the circumstances are different).

But we are talking about identity politics specifically, I think some of the things just hit differently when you're observing primarily from afar than if you're deep in it. I think that's the difference in how some of the terminology and campaigning lands.

[ponchi101]

...


You kind of say it yourself, the idea of being woke which was only a valid concept (and primarily only for American black people) until it got transformed into a meaningless scaremongering term. And there is just simply no "movement." And yes, a lot of people watch Maher and also a lot of people love Trump, doesn't make their ideas worthwhile, even if many support them.

To your point about modern vs historical standards, you could say that about any human rights issue. Are you "woke" if you don't think tennis should sell out to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights abuses. Why is noone referring to people opposing Uyghur enslavement in China as "wokenism?" After all, 200 years ago, slavery was a-ok.

I do agree with you that the "marketing" for the right is better than for the left - it's always easier to cater to the basest instincts and to fear.

I believe that no one is saying that opposing the enslavement of the Uyghur people in China is woke because we are seeing it through modern eyes. It is a clearly hideous situation. The treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar also leaves little doubt, even though it seems to have been sanctioned by a Nobel Peace Prize winner (I admit not being fully conversant on that subject). That is the point I am making. Looking at slavery, any form of slavery, that happened in the past with modern eyes is not accurate, as they are MODERN eyes. The "woke" idea that the people 200 years ago were "really bad people" because they followed practices that were standard at the time is the one that bothers a large segment of the population.
Any and all of those ideas of the past have been left behind for a reason, and that is good. Have they all been left behind by everybody? No; as you say, some people were never going to vote for a mixed race woman, ever. Heck, some people were never going to vote for a woman, regardless of race.
But these ideas are identified with the democratic party, not the GOP. And that has cost them votes. And by now, the label "woke" is, at the very least, controversial. Pretty much as PC was detrimental just a few years ago.

And, remember. There might be a forum somewhere where M9 and Ponchi102 are arguing that "a lot of people watch Maher and also a lot of people love Kamala, doesn't make their ideas worthwhile, even if many support them."
Hey, maybe WE (here at this forum) are the ones that are wrong. We must always accept that option (I believe).

[mmmm8]

...


You kind of say it yourself, the idea of being woke which was only a valid concept (and primarily only for American black people) until it got transformed into a meaningless scaremongering term. And there is just simply no "movement." And yes, a lot of people watch Maher and also a lot of people love Trump, doesn't make their ideas worthwhile, even if many support them.

To your point about modern vs historical standards, you could say that about any human rights issue. Are you "woke" if you don't think tennis should sell out to Saudi Arabia because of their human rights abuses. Why is noone referring to people opposing Uyghur enslavement in China as "wokenism?" After all, 200 years ago, slavery was a-ok.

I do agree with you that the "marketing" for the right is better than for the left - it's always easier to cater to the basest instincts and to fear.

I believe that no one is saying that opposing the enslavement of the Uyghur people in China is woke because we are seeing it through modern eyes. It is a clearly hideous situation. The treatment of the Rohingya in Myanmar also leaves little doubt, even though it seems to have been sanctioned by a Nobel Peace Prize winner (I admit not being fully conversant on that subject). That is the point I am making. Looking at slavery, any form of slavery, that happened in the past with modern eyes is not accurate, as they are MODERN eyes. The "woke" idea that the people 200 years ago were "really bad people" because they followed practices that were standard at the time is the one that bothers a large segment of the population.
Any and all of those ideas of the past have been left behind for a reason, and that is good. Have they all been left behind by everybody? No; as you say, some people were never going to vote for a mixed race woman, ever. Heck, some people were never going to vote for a woman, regardless of race.
But these ideas are identified with the democratic party, not the GOP. And that has cost them votes. And by now, the label "woke" is, at the very least, controversial. Pretty much as PC was detrimental just a few years ago.

And, remember. There might be a forum somewhere where M9 and Ponchi102 are arguing that "a lot of people watch Maher and also a lot of people love Kamala, doesn't make their ideas worthwhile, even if many support them."
Hey, maybe WE (here at this forum) are the ones that are wrong. We must always accept that option (I believe).

While it's healthy to be open to the idea of having it wrong, I don't believe we must "always" accept the option. I think some things are just facts and some things are just moral or immoral.

My point with the Uyghur example is that "woke" people are focusing on human rights abuses and inequities happening today in the modern time, not 200 years ago, and that it's openly accepted that when those abuses are happening somewhere else, it's a hideous sitution, but when it's something someone labeled "bad" and "woke," we start seeing it as something to question. I'm not saying systemic racial inequality is the same as enslavement (the Uyghur situation was just an example), but maybe things like discrimination against black drivers, or imprisoning doctors providing healthcare to women and trans people to treat valid medical diagnoses - is also a hideous situation.

[Suliso]

This is true in Western Europe as well. I'm a left of a center type of guy, but really the far left is pushing some nonsensical stuff around here too. Not the the same stuff as in US, but crazy anyway.

Can I ask what? Not being obtuse, just really we don't get good coverage here because of the threat in Europe from the far right. Is it just the regular pseudo-socialist stuff?

I'm all for inclusiveness and all the sexual stuff doesn't bother me at all, but what does bother me a lot is economic craziness. The notion that prosperity could somehow be legislated instead of worked for. That way lies Argentina before Millei... Also thinly wailed antisemitism in Palestine support and misplaced "greenness" (see German closure of nuclear plants). Also some people need to be kept out and some other left in jail as non inclusive as it might sound.

Of course we have issues with far right too, but you asked about the left.