So, bad wokeness is bad and good wokeness is good. Thanks for your contribution.

Ah, oh no, test said I'm totally woke, this whole time I didn't realise. — Judaka

Damn, starting to feel us non-woke folk are an endangered minority here... :monkey:

I think you should name names here — Benkei

They can't name names because the charge is bullshit. No-one here called for the expulsion of Jews from the Middle East or anything remotely like it.

And therein lies the essence of bigotry. I take the side of my group against the other, whatever the injustice against the other. It's "us" against "them". I agree it doesn't really matter that the "them" are Muslims in this case. As I also emphasized, Bitconnect's type are just as common among anti-semites. Same approach, just different labels.

For others who are less disengenouous, getting away from rhetorical hypotheticals and focusing on facts on the ground, a report from the Israeli rights group, B'Tselem*.

"This report deals with one of the primary, albeit lesser known, components of Israel’s policy of restricting Palestinian movement in the Occupied Territories: restrictions and prohibitions on Palestinian travel along certain roads in the West Bank. This phenomenon is referred to in the report as the “Forbidden Roads Regime.” The regime, based on the principle of separation through discrimination, bears striking similarities to the racist apartheid regime that existed in South Africa until 1994."

https://www.btselem.org/download/200408_forbidden_roads_eng.pdf

(*B'Tselem
"Historian Mordechai Bar-On writes that B'Tselem's reports "frequently included ugly accounts of the behavior of Israeli security officials" and that Israelis "were often disturbed by these reports." At the same time, the Israeli media viewed the organization as "a reliable source of information" and their reports were in most cases proven to be accurate. Israeli military authorities also frequently turned to B'tselem to confirm the IDF's own information. It has also been called the best neutral source for incidents in the Palestinian territories.")

Now the game is to pretend he doesn't understand what a hypothetical is. :lol: Thing about these guys is they're actually just vanilla bigots. The fact that their bigotry is directed towards Arabs, who they think shouldn't be afforded the rights they take for granted for themselves, is kind of incidental. They'd be bigots if they were Arabs too, and probably anti-semites.

I simply gave you an example of hypothetical anti-semitism, which you squirmed around and refused to condemn because you thought you couldn't without twisting yourself into an ethical doughnut. Funny to watch. Carry on.

Dude, you can't even unequivocally say that Jews should be allowed to use roads there, so everything you say now is coated in the absurd.



Answer the question:

"would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"? — Baden

Yes or no.

What's funny here is watching @BitconnectCarlos squirm and try to avoid condemning obvious anti-semitism. @Andrew4Handel, you're next. If you can't condemn roads being built that Jews would not be allowed to travel on but Arabs would, you're an anti-semite. Period.

Absolutely, just want to put forward a very simple proposition based on a very simple fact that puts defenders of Israel in the position of having to defend hypothetical anti-semitism or condemn Israeli apartheid. There is no other consistent ethical position.

"would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"? — Baden

Stop squirming and answer the question above. Anti-semitic or not?

The West Bank is a Palestinian territory under Israeli occupation. So, would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state occupying Israeli territory to build roads Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs? And if you object to any of that, you can reduce it to, "would you consider it anti-semitic for roads to be built that Jews were not allowed to travel on but Arabs were"?

"This is the law of all laws. It is the most important law in the history of the State of Israel US, which says that everyone has human rights, but national rights in Israel the US belong only to the Jewish people white people. That is the founding principle on which the state was established."

Why would anyone object to this type of thing? Perfectly fine. Absolutely not apartheid. Just like Italy, really.

Would you consider it acceptable for an Arab state to build roads in Israel that Arabs but not Jews were allowed to travel on? Or to build settlements there exclusively for Arabs?

n any case if we started actually applying attention to muslim on muslim oppression the range of topics covered would be much much broader and israel would proportionally receive less attention. — BitconnectCarlos

This is not the topic of the thread. If you want to start a new thread about that, go ahead. Thing is, you won't find anyone defending that oppression, so the debate is likely to be short lived.

Fact is you don't have an ethicial leg to stand on. If Arabs instituted a state that kept Jews in an open air prison/ghetto that they regularly bombed and built roads especially for Arabs that Jews weren't allowed travel on, you, us, and the rest of the world would be rightly outraged. That you think this should be fine when it's done to Arabs/Muslims makes you, at the very least, a bigot, if not an outright racist.

i was talking about muslim on muslim oppression which is considered so pervasive in the west (and not without reason) that we just don't talk about it because we just don't care. it's not nearly as exciting as an ethnic struggle! :starstruck: — BitconnectCarlos

There's a degree of truth to the idea that ethnic struggles, black vs white, Jewish vs Muslim, Catholic vs. Protestant etc more immediately grab our attention on a human level than internacine conflicts. Possibly because the very idea of oppression, from slavery to the holocaust, has strong historical resonances with racial, religious, and ethnic discrimination. So, our oppression "radar" tends to perk up when clear ethnic differences are at play. However, the obvious lesson from this is that we should heighten our awareness of all types of oppression rather than downplay our awareness of the ethnic form. Any argument to the contrary is perverse, self-defeating, and just more silly whataboutism.

:up: The real anti-semitism here is from those who would claim being Jewish somehow deprives you of individual political sovereignty. That it makes you a de facto supporter of apartheid. Anyway, in the absence of any evidence, we shouldn't give this any oxygen. It's a tired diversionary tactic.

you — Andrew4Handel

Who is "you"? Who argued that Jews should be expelled from the middle east?

If it helps you understand where some of us are coming from: as well as being against Israeli apartheid, I am also for the boycotting of the upcoming World Cup in Qatar due to their use of bonded labour and I'd have some very strong words about the government of that country and their horribly fucked-up culture re foreign labour if it came up for debate. Does that make me Islamaphobic? No; you can be Muslim without supporting that, just as you can be Jewish without supporting Israel's abuse of the Palestinians. For the vast majority of critics of Israel, I'd wager, these are issues of human rights and the religion or ethnicity of the human rights abuser is irrelevant.

What’s as interesting as whether or not this narrative is true (unlikely but possible) is considering who desperately wants it to be true and why.

I’m clearly a dinosaur. Though it would be disingenuous of me to pretend I didn’t know what the woke answers were or when such an orientation is appropriate to enforce.

Could it be these accusations of mass wokeness are but figments of feeble-minded fascist fantasists?? :chin:

I’m beginning to doubt its scientific credentials. :lol:

Are the Chyneez trying to kill the good ol’ boys of Stoopid, USA again? Tricky buggers never give up, do they?

I expect few on the mod team would qualify for the woke brigade. We are likely just boringly representative of the clever and the charming.

https://quizly.co/how-woke-are-you/

:cry:

The general argument concerning free speech of course has nothing to do with the argument concerning moderation on any particular forum any more than an argument for free food choices obliges an Italian restaurant to serve hamburgers. And yet posters consistently conflate these debates. There’s no inconsistency whatsoever between supporting free speech and running a moderated forum.

I'm not in favour of just allowing people to post garbage because "censorship is bad". — Judaka

:up:

have little patience to listen to shit from fascists or racists. And it's not simply a matter of me tuning them out or changing the channel. I want to see them shunned, banned, marginalized, pushed back under the fridge and into the darkness where they belong. They will always be with us, but we don't have to give them time or a platform. — James Riley

:cheer:

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans" — Andrew4Handel

We don't faciliatate debate on issues we consider unworthy of debate. We consider that a poor use of our space. There are plenty of other forums less concerned about quality who do. Just go there. That's to emphasize, this is a popular philosophy forum with an academic bias. That's what we do here. It's our niche. Any subject that has zero chance of being considered worthy of academic debate probably has zero chance of being accepted here. It's not even really a question of what should or should not be debated. It's like going into an Italian restaraunt and wondering why they don't serve hamburgers. Just go to a McDonald's, man. That's not what we do here. Simple.

Dammit, have 'em both. :party:

Trying a new title.

Maybe not the best title anyhow. If someone has a better suggestion that covers this, PM me.

I don't know, I can say about Ireland we have -list a bunch of unfavourable characteristics- in spades here without necessarily being prejudiced against the Irish, no?

I'm not going to justify my statements further. I'm also not going to retract them. — T Clark

OK, well, your accusations are unfounded then. Don't make any further threads like this.

No, you've avoided it and you don't get to do that. If you make an accusation, you need to justify it, or retract or it is presumed unfounded. If someone starts a thread accusing you of racist (or euphemistically "racial") language, you'll be done the same honour. We can't have people running around making threads about each other based on accusations they're not willing to back up with any evidence, can we?

Justify your presumption that this language was exclusively about whites or stop repeating the accusation and retract. Those are your choices. You can't procede without dealing with that.

Sorry, I guess we're here:
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You are using unacceptable racial language!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying, should this language about white people be acceptable?
Me: What??

So, now we're here:
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying...

All your arguments fall apart because the assumption the comments are exclusively about white people is yours and 180 is not responsible for your assumptions. Further, we don't do moderation on the basis of unfounded assumptions. At some point you need to acknowledge that and stop pretending you have any basis for your argument/complaint.

By the way, @Hanover's a white Southerner and though being obese, a maskless moron, an opioid addict and an adulterer, he is, as far as I know, not an unwed mother. Stripper is 50/50. So, you've got at least one wrong, Clarky.

Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!

You have to laugh.

Essentially, it's a nice little conundrum he's gotten himself into. The extent he can be sure the language refers to white people equals the extent we're justified in assuming white people in the South are actually like that equals the lack of prejudicial content. And the only way out of this circus of foolishness is an even worse circular presumption that it's because 180 wrote it that it must be racist? Why? Because he's black? Oh, more racism from T Clark.

In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. — T Clark

Why?

I don't feel any need to justify that. — T Clark

Yes, you do, because it forms the basis of your accusation of the use of racial language.