EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3900
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
To their left it's seen as a bastardized/coopted intersectionality, to their right, whatever BJ and Intro are saying. Similar to "abolish/defund the police", Democrats coopted something and now they argue with Republicans about what something they bastardized actually means and whether it's good or bad. EDIT: Basically, "wokeism" is a Republican caricature, of a coopted/bastardized Democrat interpretation, of socialist intersectionality. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
I normally hate these semantic arguments – words can mean whatever you want them to – but I do think it’s material that it’s so vague and non-specific. It’s not totally an accident, propagandists like Chris Rufo want it to be a big bucket. The goal is any time you think a liberal is annoying you don’t just think “they’re annoying,” it’s part of a grand overarching narrative by which all manner of problems can be attributed to “wokeness.” It’s a bit like they accuse “SJWs” or w/e of seeing racism in everything. | ||
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On March 22 2023 08:23 StasisField wrote: You are such a bad faith actor. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. I gave you the reason why I think it’s pointless to try to offer definitions: that the thread will just devolve into a semantics argument over the definitions as a way to deflect from actual grievances. I even said you could use the definitions Falling offered if you want a definition. I also gave you an example of similar times when the debate unraveled because people were too concerned about terms being used informally and incorrectly that they refused to acknowledge actual arguments. Your response was to immediately turn it into a semantics argument of right-wingers not using words correctly. How exactly does that not prove my point? You want me to respond to that so we can argue back and forth about what constitutes critical race theory even though neither of us are saying what is taught in grade school is critical race theory? We don’t have a single word or term that refers to the ideas of teaching black children they are oppressed in grade school. I don’t care what you call it. Do you want to make up a term for it so we can all be on the same page and move past the semantics? Or I suspect the entire point is to say “well if you don’t have a term for it then it’s not real and your grievances aren’t legitimate.” | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On March 22 2023 08:52 BlueBird. wrote: Okay Ill address this example The parent committee that was referenced is a volunteer based team that merely gives recommendations to the school board based on what parents are concerned about. They are not legally in charge of the school system and have no authority. " people that are tasked with overseeing the education of children" Is just a false statement. The school district, teachers, administrators and others are the ones that have a professional obligation to oversee student education. These people are volunteers tasked with giving input to the school board on concerns that parents have. Given that this is just a batch of volunteers, I don't see the issue. Are they out of touch? Yes. But every single one of these unpaid, time consuming, volunteer positions is going to attract people that are out of touch. This is entirely wrong although it could be my fault because I didn’t include a citation on my last post. The citation I had was paywalled but here is a similar one https://abc7news.com/sfusd-sfud-pac-parent-advisory-council-seth-brenzel/10328448/ The parent committee is a volunteer committee but they are the ones supporting the white gay Dad to be on their committee. It was the SF school board which decided that despite being the only man and LGBT he lacks the sufficient amount of melanin in his skin to be considered diverse enough for that committee. The SF school board is not a volunteer group and they are responsible with overseeing the functioning of the SF school system that is responsible for educating children. | ||
KwarK
United States42689 Posts
On March 22 2023 13:52 BlackJack wrote: We don’t have a single word or term that refers to the ideas of teaching black children they are oppressed in grade school. It’s called history. US history classes includes a lot of learning about racism. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11508 Posts
On March 22 2023 13:52 BlackJack wrote: We don’t have a single word or term that refers to the ideas of teaching black children they are oppressed in grade school. I don’t care what you call it. Do you want to make up a term for it so we can all be on the same page and move past the semantics? Or I suspect the entire point is to say “well if you don’t have a term for it then it’s not real and your grievances aren’t legitimate.” Then create one. That would solve the whole problem of taking a word, using it to mean something completely different then it actually means, and then being mad at people telling you that the word doesn't mean what you think it does or getting confused that people misunderstand what you are saying because you are misusing words. I am a physics teacher. It is incredibly annoying how much of my work is getting people to realize that they are misusing terms. Surprising amounts of physics and maths terms are completely misused by the greater public, which makes teaching physics a lot harder than it would need to be. This is a slightly different variation of this problem, because here everyone but physicists are abusing those terms, while in your case only the red half of the population does. The solution is the same. Use words to mean what they actually mean, not something else entirely. It is also problematic when people of different political standings use a different vocabulary with different definitions. Because that means that at some point, they basically cannot talk to each other anymore, because their words mean different things to each of them, and they no longer understand what the other is saying. Which i tend to assume is by design, a lot of people in the US profit greatly from increasing the split in your society. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
I guess, woke means subscribing to leftist ideology. The main complaints today are: The destruction of traditional family structures, for example by normalising same sex families, treating trans people as equivalent to the gender they identify with while ignoring biological differences, teaching children about non traditional gender roles thus encouraging them to try them out, etc. A bias towards minorities due to perceived past injustices, for example by providing slavery reparations, lowered requiremenrs for entering colleges and jobs, etc. The demonisation of organised Christianity as being backward and bigoted, and treating Chtistianity as an obstacle to progress, while other even more conservative religions like Islam get a free pass. Moving the focus of law enforcement away from stopping crime and prosecuting lawbreakers, supporting rioters that riot for a "just cause", etc. It is clear that those of the left broadly view most of these as good things. Some of these are rightly seen as strawmen arguments. Thanks to the media, the right see these points as things that the left believe in and are evil. There will never be an agreement if you try to discuss wokeness with someone from the right, because they are fundamentally against some of the ideas that you hold dear. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
On March 22 2023 14:05 KwarK wrote: It’s called history. US history classes includes a lot of learning about racism. Good Motte-and-Bailey. I like it. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23231 Posts
Have any of you seen the Boondocks episode with Ann Coulter? It's kinda like that. Beyond that I think Kwark is right with "History" but "Social Studies" is probably more encompassing. More than what gobbledy says about "anti-wokeists" being "fundamentally against ideas" Democrats hold dear, they fundamentally reject the reality that the ideas Democrats have coopted were formed in. Up until the 1950's basically the entirety of polite society, academia, and the professional world rejected oppressed peoples' worldviews/lived experiences as valid almost entirely (and are still yet to recognize them in totality). The people that grew up indoctrinated with the worldview such conditions produce (and their obedient children/grandchildren) don't want to give that up (for deplorable but understandable reasons imo). What we constantly run into is people (they're predominately elected Republicans but plenty of Democrats too) and their supporters (of varying enthusiasm/aspects) viscerally resisting losing that power/validation of that worldview. That's a major source of motivation for anti-woke and anti-communist thinking/actions Without some degree of that worldview one can't maintain the fantasy of the US as a shining beacon on a hill that ultimately both parties use to rationalize the US's ongoing war crimes and such. Which takes us back to the Boondocks bit. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
On March 22 2023 08:41 Liquid`Drone wrote: He was using CRT as an example of a word taking on a colloquial meaning which differs from the original academic meaning, not arguing that CRT is taught in grade school. Then he argued that the semantic discussion some people prefer to have detracts from the discussion of examples or hypotheticals: rather than to debate whether it is correct to teach white kids that they are oppressors or black kids that they are oppressed (or, rather than discussing how prevalent this type of discourse is), people home in on how the phrase CRT isn't appropriate to describe what is being taught. Honestly it is pretty similar to what is happening here: rather than discussing whether BJs concrete examples from SF are instances of good policy, or discuss whether those examples are nearly unique and thus irrelevant in terms of saying anything meaningful about the direction society is headed, these discussions are sidelined in favor of discussing whether BJ is correctly using the word woke. The problem is that he brings up those examples of "wokeism" that most people here disagree are a problem caused by "wokeism". Most people here also agree that the policy was either wrongheaded to start with, or got got by the law of unintended consequences. So there isn't much to discuss beyond "but those are not things that are examples of woke policy, what do you think woke means?" | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On March 22 2023 14:42 gobbledydook wrote: There is an element of "what I don't like is woke" definitely. I guess, woke means subscribing to leftist ideology. The main complaints today are: The destruction of traditional family structures, for example by normalising same sex families, treating trans people as equivalent to the gender they identify with while ignoring biological differences, teaching children about non traditional gender roles thus encouraging them to try them out, etc. A bias towards minorities due to perceived past injustices, for example by providing slavery reparations, lowered requiremenrs for entering colleges and jobs, etc. The demonisation of organised Christianity as being backward and bigoted, and treating Chtistianity as an obstacle to progress, while other even more conservative religions like Islam get a free pass. Moving the focus of law enforcement away from stopping crime and prosecuting lawbreakers, supporting rioters that riot for a "just cause", etc. It is clear that those of the left broadly view most of these as good things. Some of these are rightly seen as strawmen arguments. Thanks to the media, the right see these points as things that the left believe in and are evil. There will never be an agreement if you try to discuss wokeness with someone from the right, because they are fundamentally against some of the ideas that you hold dear. See, this is a much more useful post than most of the woke this woke that nonsense that's been going on for the past however many pages. It's much easier to discuss whether 'traditional family structure' is important or not or whether 'bias towards minorities' is a real thing and what are the pros and cons of it if it is indeed real. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17992 Posts
On March 22 2023 14:22 Simberto wrote: Then create one. That would solve the whole problem of taking a word, using it to mean something completely different then it actually means, and then being mad at people telling you that the word doesn't mean what you think it does or getting confused that people misunderstand what you are saying because you are misusing words. I am a physics teacher. It is incredibly annoying how much of my work is getting people to realize that they are misusing terms. Surprising amounts of physics and maths terms are completely misused by the greater public, which makes teaching physics a lot harder than it would need to be. This is a slightly different variation of this problem, because here everyone but physicists are abusing those terms, while in your case only the red half of the population does. The solution is the same. Use words to mean what they actually mean, not something else entirely. It is also problematic when people of different political standings use a different vocabulary with different definitions. Because that means that at some point, they basically cannot talk to each other anymore, because their words mean different things to each of them, and they no longer understand what the other is saying. Which i tend to assume is by design, a lot of people in the US profit greatly from increasing the split in your society. I don't think you understand the gravity of the situation here. The uncertainty around the meaning of wokeness is causing inertia in the discussion. It'll take a lot of force to break through this negative energy. | ||
|
FeatherPlanes
45 Posts
On March 22 2023 14:42 gobbledydook wrote: There is an element of "what I don't like is woke" definitely. I guess, woke means subscribing to leftist ideology. The main complaints today are: The demonisation of organised Christianity as being backward and bigoted, and treating Chtistianity as an obstacle to progress, while other even more conservative religions like Islam get a free pass. I mean, that's kind of like lumping the Anglican and Catholic Church together. And just like the two, you kind of have to ask if its the religion or culture really dictating the social values the religion pushes. Islamic practitioners in Saudi Arabia are very different to those in a major cosmopolitan city, even though both are likely more nominally socially conservative than your typical irreligious person. The whole practice of prohibiting or allowing ursury is a good example of how maliable religion is when confronted by very real environmental circumstances. Its no different than Americans creating the Prosperity Gospel to best fit a hypercapitalist society. Religion has and always will bend to the needs of its practitioners, which is where you're probably getting the idea Islam gets the pass. The problem is that no one can really discuss these sort of matters with any sort of nuance because so many people are arguing in bad faith and so debates are ultimately useless. Not to mention just about everyone on the left is against, say, Saudi Arabia and their social regressiveness lol. The saddest thing is that its actually a particular sect of the far right, most notably manosphere assholes, who freaking love fundamnetalist Islam based on the very orientalised (so to speak) image pushed by Western media. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On March 22 2023 14:22 Simberto wrote: Then create one. That would solve the whole problem of taking a word, using it to mean something completely different then it actually means, and then being mad at people telling you that the word doesn't mean what you think it does or getting confused that people misunderstand what you are saying because you are misusing words. I am a physics teacher. It is incredibly annoying how much of my work is getting people to realize that they are misusing terms. Surprising amounts of physics and maths terms are completely misused by the greater public, which makes teaching physics a lot harder than it would need to be. This is a slightly different variation of this problem, because here everyone but physicists are abusing those terms, while in your case only the red half of the population does. The solution is the same. Use words to mean what they actually mean, not something else entirely. It is also problematic when people of different political standings use a different vocabulary with different definitions. Because that means that at some point, they basically cannot talk to each other anymore, because their words mean different things to each of them, and they no longer understand what the other is saying. Which i tend to assume is by design, a lot of people in the US profit greatly from increasing the split in your society. The actual word for a white gay dad being denied placement on a parent school committee because of his skin color would be racism. But people object to the use of that word as well. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
On March 22 2023 16:50 BlackJack wrote: The actual word for a white gay dad being denied placement on a parent school committee because of his skin color would be racism. But people object to the use of that word as well. The actual word for a piece of furniture that has a flat, horizontal surface supported by legs, a base, or stands would be table. Some people object to the use of that word as well. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2603 Posts
On March 22 2023 16:18 FeatherPlanes wrote: I mean, that's kind of like lumping the Anglican and Catholic Church together. And just like the two, you kind of have to ask if its the religion or culture really dictating the social values the religion pushes. Islamic practitioners in Saudi Arabia are very different to those in a major cosmopolitan city, even though both are likely more nominally socially conservative than your typical irreligious person. The whole practice of prohibiting or allowing ursury is a good example of how maliable religion is when confronted by very real environmental circumstances. Its no different than Americans creating the Prosperity Gospel to best fit a hypercapitalist society. Religion has and always will bend to the needs of its practitioners, which is where you're probably getting the idea Islam gets the pass. The problem is that no one can really discuss these sort of matters with any sort of nuance because so many people are arguing in bad faith and so debates are ultimately useless. Not to mention just about everyone on the left is against, say, Saudi Arabia and their social regressiveness lol. The saddest thing is that its actually a particular sect of the far right, most notably manosphere assholes, who freaking love fundamnetalist Islam based on the very orientalised (so to speak) image pushed by Western media. These are nuances that are generally not being picked up by those on the right consuming Fox News etc. I did say that not all of these things they believe are actually true, but this is what they've been told to believe is woke and wrong. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On March 22 2023 08:18 ChristianS wrote: Christ, are you a fan of that YouTube channel? I remember the Chesa Boudin election. And yeah, I’ve been to Portland a couple times in recent years, I have family up there. As usual, I think the “wokeness” framing isn’t clarifying anything for you. You’re annoyed about how a school board meeting went + Show Spoiler + I think you forgot to link the article for it? Voters like “tough on crime” rhetoric. This is not a recent development, nor is it exclusive to red or blue districts. They’re usually on pretty poor evidentiary footing that harsher policing reduce crime, but when you tell people “crime is bad, let’s brutalize criminals so they’ll stop” they tend to like that logic. They also like policies intended to push homeless people into some other district, policies that keep their own land value up even if that causes cost of living to skyrocket, etc. If you want to find a single overarching phenomenon that underlies most problems in local politics, try NIMBYism, it’s clearly not “wokeness.” Even in blue states the local policies enacted are seldom all that “woke.” Fwiw I agree with you that DeSantis trying to legislate against wokeness is going about it the wrong way entirely. | ||
|
FeatherPlanes
45 Posts
On March 22 2023 16:50 BlackJack wrote: The actual word for a white gay dad being denied placement on a parent school committee because of his skin color would be racism. But people object to the use of that word as well. Reading Seth Brenzel's (the gay dad) op-ed for the Bay Area Reporter, together with Heather Knight's article for the San Francisco Chronicles' (who actually talked to Brenzel on Twitter regarding the SF Board of Education conducting political malpractice on a different issue), race was actually seems to be the least of the issues here. They might have pointed out he doesn't meet their diversity criteria - something that Brenzel and LGBTQ Democrats noticed as stupid since all of the chosen parents were hetrosexual and LGBTQ kids at SF schools were suffering from a wave of bullying so could really use a voice - but the real reason appears to be that Brenzel was an hyperqualified candidate (i.e. can actually influence people) who strongly advocated for reopening schools at the time and the Board just did not want to address that quesiton at all. To quote from the San Fransisco Chronicle: She knew Brenzel’s advocacy for reopening schools safely might be an issue. But any normal board would have at least tabled the appointment, quietly, rather than publicly humiliate him for two hours, said PAC chair Naomi Laguana. After all, hundreds of parents were waiting to speak about opening schools, a topic that, as usual, didn’t come up for seven hours. “There were 500 parents along for this roller-coaster ride of insanity, and I felt responsible,” said Laguana, who had recruited Brenzel. So the situation really seems like a rorschach test. The Daily Mail sees anti-white racism, LGBTQ groups see discrimination against the LGBTQ community. The reality doesn't truely seem to be either of this, the SF Board of Education appeared to be playing politics, playing politics very poorly, and just pissing everyone off because they just wanted to dodge a pressing issue regarding reopening schools for disadvantaged children. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10501 Posts
On March 22 2023 18:25 FeatherPlanes wrote: Reading Seth Brenzel's (the gay dad) op-ed for the Bay Area Reporter, together with Heather Knight's article for the San Francisco Chronicles' (who actually talked to Brenzel on Twitter regarding the SF Board of Education conducting political malpractice on a different issue), race was actually seems to be the least of the issues here. They might have pointed out he doesn't meet their diversity criteria - something that Brenzel and LGBTQ Democrats noticed as stupid since all of the chosen parents were hetrosexual and LGBTQ kids at SF schools were suffering from a wave of bullying so could really use a voice - but the real reason appears to be that Brenzel was an hyperqualified candidate (i.e. can actually influence people) who strongly advocated for reopening schools at the time and the Board just did not want to address that quesiton at all. To quote from the San Fransisco Chronicle: So the situation really seems like a rorschach test. The Daily Mail sees anti-white racism, LGBTQ groups see discrimination against the LGBTQ community. The reality doesn't seem to be either of this, the SF Board of Education appeared to be playing politics, playing politics very poorly, and just pissing everyone off because they just wanted to dodge a pressing issue regarding reopening schools for disadvantaged children. So although they said they rejected him for his lack of diversity the real reason is they wanted to dodge the question on school reopening? The idea that anti-white racism is so tolerated that it can be used as a palatable made-up reason to reject a candidate is an even better punchline. | ||
| ||
