The Real problem with cancel culture

[DGuller]

Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?

[Sheilbh]

Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?

As I say in the UK, the Daily Mail's described avocadoes, the Church of England, the BBC, anything that hints at "cancelling Christmas" (I saw this today because a chocolate company has an advent calendar - with a picture of a Christmas tree - but no reference to advent), health and safety, non-alcoholic drinks at a work do, media organisations covering protests and anxiety as "woke".

I don't know that there is a collective description for those ideas, because I don't think there's anything collective about those ideas/things/institutions. In the UK it is used in the same way that "health and safety" or "political correctness gone mad" used to be used.

I think, in the UK, it's more shorthand for a collection of cultural panic: people not doing Remembrance Day properly, the CofE being the CofE, new vegetables, people talking about mental health, Dr Who being a woman etc. It's the latest name for it - as I say there was "political correctness gone mad" in the 90s and 00s, this is just the current iteration.

[DGuller]

Okay, so what word would you like to be used to collective describe ideas regarded as "woke" by the detractors?

As I say in the UK, the Daily Mail's described avocadoes, the Church of England, the BBC, anything that hints at "cancelling Christmas" (I saw this today because a chocolate company has an advent calendar - with a picture of a Christmas tree - but no reference to advent), health and safety, non-alcoholic drinks at a work do, media organisations covering protests and anxiety as "woke".

I don't know that there is a collective description for those ideas, because I don't think there's anything collective about those ideas/things/institutions. In the UK it is used in the same way that "health and safety" or "political correctness gone mad" used to be used.

I think, in the UK, it's more shorthand for a collection of cultural panic: people not doing Remembrance Day properly, the CofE being the CofE, new vegetables, people talking about mental health, Dr Who being a woman etc. It's the latest name for it - as I say there was "political correctness gone mad" in the 90s and 00s, this is just the current iteration.

Okay, let's take individual clusters out of this hodge podge.  Can we take some cluster out of it and give it a name?

[Josquius]

Generally it means being a bit more progressive than the speaker in whatever topic is being looked at.
That's the word. Progressive. As opposed to conservative. With reactionary fuckers on the extreme.

[Sheilbh]

I mean I'd normally just say x activism/activists and tie it to their cause and I'd normally use the phrase they have for themselves if in inverted commas if it's contested. And normally their opponents are also just a different type of activist who can be described similarly.

My general view is describe people as they describe themselves - if it is a point of contention then you can couch it to explain that or use inverted commas.

[Josquius]

Yeah, that too. It's funny it's only really with abortion this civility has stuck despite the silliness of "Pro life"

[The Minsky Moment]

slavery was not worth fighting a war over with.  But fighting to keep the States by force inside the Union was equally evil. 

No
This is where you keep going wrong on this issue

[Duque de Bragança]

It has also been talked about in the French primary of the right where they discussed "wokisme" as a dangerous imported American far-left ideology infecting the French education system/Republic

Fixed!

I am disappointed they did not choose wokerie instead. Sounds much better in French. 

[Josquius]

Freaking Wokois.

[Duque de Bragança]

Tarés de wokes.

Fixed! 

[Berkut]

I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.

[/b]

in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.

This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.

Why is that?

I never read these comments.  Sorry, I do not read 100% of what is written.

It's not as democratic as I would expect of a modern democracy, but for the time, it was as democratic as other States aiming to achieve independence.  The legislative assemblies of each States met to decide their future.

Their reasons were flawed, of course, slavery was not worth fighting a war over with.  But fighting to keep the States by force inside the Union was equally evil.  Just like the Mexicans invading Texas to end their independence bid or Great Britain invading the US instead of negotiating in good faith with their colonies.

You've ignored the point again.

There was no democratic process to form the Confederacy. It's PURPOSE for forming was to protect slavery, and hence them refusing to let the slaves vote means that there wasn't even "bad" democracy at play.

You might as well claim that New York should secede from the US, because they had a democratic election and it passed. But only Berkut got to vote.

It is not democracy at all if the people who are actually relevant to the question are not allowed to vote on the question.

The "reasons were flawed" is bullshit evasion, and you know it. It has nothing to do with whether the reasons were flawed or not. The reason could be the best possible reasons, but if the vote does not include the people directly impacted by the vote, it is not democracy.

And "fighting to keep the states in the Union" was not even a little bit evil, since the reason the states wanted to leave was so they could make sure to remain undemocratic, rather then acceded to the actual wishes of the actual democratic majority. They seceded, remember, because the majority elected a President they did not like.

You cannot claim to care about democracy while defending the Confederacy for being formed democratically, when they were not, while attacking the Union for fighting to actually defend actual democracy!

[DGuller]

Devil's advocate time:  when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?

[Berkut]

Generally it means being a bit more progressive than the speaker in whatever topic is being looked at.

Fucking bullshit Tyr.

That is NOT what it means, and that is not how the people you are actually talking to use it. It's not how I use, it's not how DG uses it, it is not how anyone here uses the term.

I know this is the case, since I am generally more practically progressive then most of you, so how could it be that I mean it to mean more progressive then myself?

That's the word. Progressive. As opposed to conservative. With reactionary fuckers on the extreme.

No, progressive and woke are not the same thing. This is just a way to avoid defending woke bullshit by pretending that disagreeing with said woke crap is tantamount to disagreeing with the broader progressive agenda.

No, that does not work. As someone who disagrees with what we all know we mean when we talk about "woke" culture, and yet most certainly identifies as being very progressive (and in fact I claim I am MORE progressive then most people who consider themselves part of that ultra-left woke culture) I absolutely reject YOUR definition of what I am talking about.

If you want to come up with some other word then woke, go right ahead. It's just a label. Would you be happier with "reactionary left fuckers on the extreme"?

[Berkut]

Devil's advocate time:  when there is a referendum on the ballot for restoring the voting rights of convicted felons, is it democratic?

That is a tricky one. I would argue that they should get a vote for sure, but I know I am a minority there.

But then, I would also vote to restore their voting rights anyway, since I think it is insane that anyone should ever lose the right to vote. It is, IMO, a fundamental right that cannot and should not ever be taken away.

But I would recognize that voting about voting, of course, is something of a special case.

If we held a vote to lower the voting age to 14, should 14-17 year olds get to vote on it?

[crazy canuck]

I've called Viper a racist. Because he is. Quebec separatism is a white nationalist program and Viper himself has compared the cause to that of the Confederacy.

[/b]

in the sense that both held democratic vote on their independance, yes.

This is at least the third time you have made this claim (That the Confederacy held a democratic vote on its formation). Each time I have refuted it, and each time you ignore that refutation and then go and repeat it again.

Why is that?

I don't think viper is racist, I think he's a hardcore separatist and will always side with them regardless of the circumstances.

And hardcore federalists, like Jean Chrétien, will always side with Canada, no matter how wrong it is.  Like his recent comments on indigenous boarding schools that barely registered in English Canada, and only gain short traction in the news here.

We all have our loyalties.

I have to wonder what news sources you have.  And how it is you think that indigenous boarding schools "barely registered" in English Canada.