have a good deal of resentment toward everything that is not conservative. — javra

I see where you are coming from about my tone. But it’s not resentment. It’s frustration. It’s tiresome convincing people that I don’t like Hitler, or that I don’t secretly like oppressing women or something. Because there is no way to satisfy any request for such proof. Only a confession will do. And the debate on the issues is over before it started. Conservatives have let themselves be framed as racist sexist pigs for so long it’s a foregone conclusion. It’s frustrating to deal with that in good faith.

But the actual progressive views and policies, some of them make total sense. No resentment from me when someone else has a better view. I don’t write off anyone because of their politics. I answered your question about Hitler. I try to show I am arguing in good faith, but, because I am clearly not progressive, usually political conversations stay around Hitler and Nazis and how racist I must be. Same for all conservatives. Same since the 1980’s.

Trump, the person who recently announced that it should be illegal for news outlets to speak negatively of him, not of an authoritarian mindset? — javra

So let’s be precise. Is Trump drafting legislation to make it illegal for the news to speak negatively of him? Because that would be stupid, and sounds like a dictator. The shit that comes out of his mouth sometimes. But I am sure such legislation can’t and won’t happen. Biden went so far as to set up the Disinformation Governance Board or something - much scarier to me, not because it was Biden, but because it had an enforcement structure to it, as opposed to crap Trump says.

Trump is not merely a chief executive officer enforcing laws and implementing policies. As you know I’m sure, every word he says does not cause there to be a new policy. People do resist the all powerful president when he’s an idiot. That’s how the checks and balances work. But He is still a politician, and a citizen, and gets to speak his mind, even when it is a stupid idea that goes against a free press. He has some dictatorial ideas for sure. That won’t lead to policy imposed on the public though. Obama and Biden deported a lot of illegal immigrants you know. Trump isn’t really a dictator.

There were people who said electing George W. Bush was going to be the end of democracy, that he wanted to allow women be raped, etc. But no president in my lifetime has been pilloried as badly as Trump. So if he gets overly sensitive and says “it should be illegal to make fun of me” I get it. But I’m sure we’ll see how that doesn’t go anywhere at all.

When it comes to economy, I am all for capitalism when it stand up to its ideal of meritocracy: each benefiting economically based on their earnest deserve (rather than based on the goal of maximizing corruption so as to make the biggest buck). And, I am likewise for the existence of an economic social net to protect from devastating accidental events which can befall us all - welfare as its typically called - seeing absolutely no entailed contradiction between the two. Does that make me a conservative Republican, a liberal Democrat ... this stringent dichotomy is a bit bipolar for me. To me the discussion should not be about either or but about discussion what is best — javra

Basically full agreement on all points here. You sound conservative to me, no contradiction, but like you implied, who really cares about the label - the issue is what is best. (Plus I wouldn’t wish the disparaging title “conservative” on anyone unwillingly).

So let me show you some nuances from my perspective on what we basically agree, to make a point.
Merit based hiring drawing from a pool of all worthy applicants regardless of race, creed, sex, etc. Total agreement. It makes sense for there to be laws on the books to foster fair, merit based hiring practices. Many are good laws, some are too vague and misused, some are bad - needs to evolve and continue being debated, and tested in court, but call it liberal or call it conservative — merit based hiring is good, and many entities need to be regulated to keep it that way.

But DEI in corporations through the HR department - to avoid employment law issues - that is mostly crap and counterproductive. All it does is confuse common decency and humble respect owed between all people, by favoring one group and disfavoring another group. All it does is promote reverse racism and sexism. It’s been terrible policy. It has led to so much abuse. It has little to actually do with merit. It rewards bad behavior more often than it helps anyone.

So if someone thinks I am conservative, and hears me saying DEI is crap, they will assume I am racist and sexist, and will think I’m lying about merit based hiring for all races and sexes. Usually we don’t get past whether Hitler would have been in favor of DEI or not.

I also agree with welfare and Medicare and a net for unfortunate circumstances. But It’s the same on every issue though. For me to suggest some sort of parameter for how to distribute welfare, because I’m conservative, it is really just me showing how I don’t care about all black, hispanic and disabled people. If I suggest “no welfare for that” someone will say “but that person is black, so you are just hating black people again.” You see how it works?

The policy is always secondary to identity politics, and conservatives have the same identity as Hitler.

So let’s jump to hate speech legislation. I think it’s too vague and too impossible to enforce, and will lead to drastically inequitable outcomes, and will certainly be abused by politicians to silence their opposition. So hate speech legislation is crap. But because I am a conservative, what I must really mean is that I am okay with people hating trans, or gay, or immigrants. I don’t get to pass Go on that issue. I am a Nazi for some reason again because “hate speech legislation” is bad policy.

Or, like all republican politicians have to do, I have to answer for spreading hate all of the time if I want to have a policy discussion.

if "conservatism" to you basically means the preservation of traditional values, do you then take all traditional values which are to be preserved to be non-authoritarian? (I've, for one example, grown up learning in church that the husband is the metaphorical head of the family and the women is the metaphorically subservient body - which must obey the head without question if things are to be in order. So I so far find this to be a traditional value in western culture. And I don't deem it an egalitarian, hence non-authoritarian, mindset, at least as regards the interaction between the sexes. Please do correct me if you think I'm wrong.) — javra

So, lots to unpack. But first, I don’t see this as a political question. And that is important to understand. If it is not a political issue, then it cannot lead to any government policy. So the outcome of any debate about an authoritarian tradition like men heading the family and wives being subservient, doesn’t really matter in the public sphere. It’s for each family to figure out for themselves. The dynamics of a marriage between husband and wife is more a psychological discussion, sociology discussion, anthropology discussion, and a religious tradition conversation (Jewish, Christian, Islam all have opinions on this too). But it is not a political tradition. Not for at least 100 years.

So if you are asking me how I think government should insert itself into such a debate with policy (like a rule of thumb type law about how to beat your wife, or voting rights for women), I’d say the government has to treat all adults, men and women, equally and can make no law about the inner dynamics of a family. (And wife beating is abhorrent which should be needless to say, but again, I am a republican so I have to remind people that I don’t like wife beating). It was always wrong in the US for there to be slavery, and always wrong for women not to have the vote. We all used to be apes that had no need for governing. We’ve come a long way finally for women.

Women voting is fairly new, and one of the great contributions of progressive thinkers. It took too long for it to become policy.

But if you are just asking me, as a conservative, what do I think about “man as head of the household, and wife as subservient to her husband”? I like the way My Big Fat Greek Wedding put it: “The man is the head of the family, but the woman in the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she wants.” This was said by the wife. So I try to seek the wisdom in the traditions that brought us to today, and, in this case, the wisdom handed down from both my mother and my father, but I live in the world I live in today. Most women hear “wife to be subservient” and they think “you just keep telling yourself that.” And the family goes on just fine.

Lastly, yes that is an authoritarian tradition. It has the word subservient in the very tradition. But I am not oppressed by the rules I voluntarily submit to. Sometimes the certainty of law and authority set you free. Placing a man at the head of the family can be a burden and duty for the man, and liberation for the wife. It’s not a simple dynamic here that necessarily enslaves one while making a master of the other. And politically, the husband and wife must be treated absolutely as equals. Just like every other adult citizen.

I think modern society has a diseased view of authority, tradition and things like dogma. They seem unavoidable to me, and in need of integration into our lives, not mere resistance. We resist these things in adolescence, and we should question everything, but that is before we know some realities must be humbly accepted at times. We think for ourselves to determine which authority is good and right, and when to follow, and when to resist - but we also have to make our choices and act, and we don’t get to avoid the existence of authority over us in our actions. Facts are dictators. Death is a tyrant. Taxes must be paid, or prison awaits. At times, someone has to represent the family, or someone has to be held responsible for the family, whether it be the man or the wife. Religion, not the government, provides a tradition that helps people who ask what to do determine for themselves how the family dynamics work. I would not just sua sponte tell anyone they were wrong or what to do - but if they ask, I’d say there is wisdom in picking a head to the family at times, and a wisdom to making that head the man.

As far as not saying anything about your answer, what on Earth was this:

I'm glad we do agree the Hitler was no angel. With this tinny little background given, I will contend that what makes Hitler guilty of mass murder and genocide is exactly the hate speech he engaged in. First paving the way for what eventually happened and then, or course, ordering the events.

Do you have a different explanation for why Hitler is morally culpable for unjust deaths?

Again, he never did anything else but speak.
— javra — javra

Ok, my bad. I skimmed that part and must have missed it that you are glad we agree. I’m glad too.

But all speech is not political speech. When Hitler was campaigning and running for office and shouting at some pulpit, he was engaged in political speech and we should protect that type of free speech for all opinions. We get to debate every single idea we can think of.

But then Hitler became Chancellor, and at that point his speech was commands and orders, and enforcement of law, and setting of policy - not debate. These types of speech are heavily regulated and will always have to be. Checks and balances. That’s why “hate speech” laws are dangerous, because they give enforcement power to the government regarding anyone’s stupid opinion. And they allow the Furor to arrest those who say things he doesn’t like.

We need to let Hitler speak his mind, so we can know not to elect him and we can know what arguments to make to defeat his stupid ideology of hate (like the lefts stupid ideology of identity power struggles).

We don’t use the government to regulate political speech. That’s what Hitler did. He didn’t just speak. He did many things besides speak.

Not all speech is political. When I say “hey, watch out for that bus”. I’m not expressing a political opinion. Political opinions and debate have to be protected. When Hitler said “build that concentration camp and bomb Stalingrad” he wasn’t just speaking - he was enacting policy and committing murder like a maniac. If a cop says “drop that weapon” he isn’t offering suggestion - you better fall in line or get ready for a fight.

I find it confused for you to say that “he never did anything else but speak.” This is the best way I can address you asking me how Hitler, who you say only used speech, was culpable for so many unjust deaths. Not all speech is political. So just because he used words to command his followers, he did much more than political speech.

the gender always perfectly fits biological sex, I've been around for over 30 years and have been hearing this throughout - never once hearing a rebuttle of "you're racist and sexist" because you think this. — javra

Philly’s DA, Larry Krasner, the chief law enforcement guy, just said at a town hall how republican policies are racist and sexist. First of all, who really cares, because the left’s policies are racist and sexist too. Race a sex issues are getting so old. But how about whether the policies are effective at achieving some sort of goal? Repubs or Dems effective policy makers? How about that discussion.

A despicable man like Trump was elected anyway because too many people are fed up with such blind stupidity.

And if the repubs start attacking free speech from the left, the repubs will get smacked by the conservatives. We don’t like government. Trump is liked because he isn’t a creature of politics.

Notice I didn’t just say “I like Trump because…”. I Used the passive voice “Trump is liked because….” This is my conditioning, by our left leaning media and DEI loving culture. Saying “I like Trump” can get you shot or fired. Certainly gets you hated.

Because I wonder if Trump thinks Hitler is culpable for murder? Hmmm… good question. How could anyone actually like Trump? He must sympathize with Hitler. Right?

It largely doesn't even make sense as a coherent concept
— Mijin
Quite so. — Banno

Not seeing what “woke” is, is very woke.

Hence, discrimination based on these categories is a barrier to the freedom of individuals to individuate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, and this unwittingly puts the identity category, the ideology, first and foremost, before the individual. For example, one sees discrimination based on skin color, and then, without need to ask the individual who is discriminated against, one can judge the individual must identify with that skin based category so that individual must be being oppressed - you sort of know a person’s victim status and how oppressed they have been from individuating themselves, without need to consult with the actual individual, because of the identity category.

So white people get to feel good fighting with BLM whether black people agree with BLM or not.

Ethnicity, regionalism, and even religion might be thought to be more tied to place, and the ideal liberal citizen has transcended place, — Count Timothy von Icarus

And now we get all of the calls to break up the union into smaller states based on locale.

while each place itself also becomes every other place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So in the name of the “freedom to individuate” and to distinguish something individual, each place becomes the same as the last place. More unwitting contradiction and self-defeating policy.

It's the right now that seems to more often appeal to "elitism." — Count Timothy von Icarus

But isn’t that just the right’s lame attempt to fight fire with fire, as in if you can’t beat identity politics, make up your own version? It’s still weak and sourced to leftist tactics. Or maybe I should say tyrannical tactics enjoyed on both right extremes and left center and extremes.

It’s just so tiresome.
— Fire Ologist

I agree. — javra

Then why did you ask me if I think Hitler was a bad guy? Is it because I’m a conservative republican - is that why you needed me to confess my true feelings for Hitler?

Hitler was a national socialist. He seems to me to have much more in common with the tactics and goals of the left (state control and power, hating groups of people like republicans, censorship and cancellation/extermination) than with conservatives. But you had to ask me anyway. And you didn’t say anything about my answer.

So since you didn’t respond to my answer to your question, I don’t know whether you believe me or not. Most left leaning people don’t believe conservatives when they say they are not racist. That’s what they say to my face. The left can’t imagine it is coherent to want a strong border and to like Mexico. They think we are liars, and they think they know our true feelings. Which is prejudice and bigotry against conservatism, and unobservant. And just so wrong. About me. And there are millions of black, gay, women repubs - race is just not important at all to conservatism. The vast, vast majority of us know that Hitler is evil. Such a demeaning question. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but if Hitler isn’t morally culpable for unjust deaths, nothing makes any sense at all.

Now you never addressed my question:

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black, lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican? — Fire Ologist

You want to answer that?

But back to hate speech laws…let’s look at the text you provided and I’ll give you my opinion (which is a form of speech called political that should be protected):

hate speech as "speech that demeans or promotes violence against groups based on attributes like religion, race, ethnicity, gender, or other identity factors". — javra

“Demeans” is too vague. Get it out. “I don’t think your shoes go with that outfit” is demeaning to some, and sometimes the facts are embarrassing and demeaning. What is demeaning may bring moral approbation, but cannot equitably bring legal punishment. It’s too vague. So “demeans” has to be taken out (which you seem to agree).

“Promotes violence” is too vague. “Promotes” is in the eye of the beholder, and “violence” is too often used metaphorically. The phrase “buy a gun” promotes violence against squirrels and deer. The phrase “fight” meaning resist politically can be said to promote an insurrection, or maybe just voting and debating. The phrase “beat the Democrats” or “whip the republicans” speak for themselves. Some people are so frail, words alone are the violence. That is a psychological problem or maturity problem for them, not the basis of a law limiting political speech. The phrase “dog-whistle” scares me and makes me fear for my life and must be stopped as hateful. Such bullshit. Get “promotes violence” out of the law too. It’s too “Minority Report” and “thought police” for me to enforce fairly, and I am a a fair guy.

Promoting violence is already called “incitement to riot” or “conspiracy to commit a crime” - we already have laws and don’t need to find anyone demeaned or from a favored or “at risk” group in order to enforce these laws. Being mean and saying you wish others were dead is terrible, but not something I want or need the government picking and choosing to enforce this way and that way - what a total mess that would be. Like the UN is a total contradictory mess most of the time.

“Other identity factors?” Do these need to be explicit by the perpetrator of the “hate speech” - does he need to say them, or can some jury define the identity of who was being bullied? If the latter, if hatred of some group can be inferred and need not be expressly spoken by the hater, then “other identity factors” means anyone can make a case about a hate crime about anything. America, the ones who first implemented “freedom of speech”, has too much common sense to delude ourselves that any good will come from a hate speech law. Except for left leaning Americans, who for some reason wish Trump had “hate speech” laws on the books at his disposal.

It will never pass, unless enough republicans are silenced or shot.

"Death to all [people of your ethnicity]" such that group A greatly outnumbers the group to which their chanting "death to", — javra

Sounds like a free Palestine, or BLM. rally. Wasn’t there chanting about killing all pigs, meaning cops? But the chanting part, we have to allow.

Don’t you think we can deal with terrible people chanting by simply countering with more speech? Like by chanting “stop being assholes” or “wanting death means you are too stupid to debate” or something? Make some posters? Hate speech might better be defined as “a loud display of ignorance for all to hear.”

The problem is the assaults and the destruction of property and the killing during these peaceful protests. Not the language that is supposed to be behind them.

I too now self censure myself in this political environment, just sitting on the fence with my mouth such watching what's unfolding. — javra

That is what most repubs have been doing for 30 plus years. Fearing cancelation for being racist and sexist because you think male and man are basically only biological terms and “he” points out anyone born with a penis. Total self-censorship of that view in the average public square. But that got everyone nowhere. And it led to a Trump victory despite all of the felony convictions and hatefulness he breeds.

Trump happened because conservatives can no longer stand watching what has unfolded.

Hate speech laws are all really about suppressing conservative speech, because everyone knows conservatives hate so many groups of people. Right?

You cannot censor thought. Let the thoughts come out so we can debate with the issues and show people how stupid their thoughts are. Otherwise we breed reactionaries and radicals in their mom’s basements.

Hate speech laws are dumb. I hate the idea.

Do you hold Hitler morally culpable for any unjust death? And, if so, why? — javra

So because I am a conservative we have to clear up my relationship to Hitler.

You precisely exemplify my point to @Joshs just above.

We have all been well-trained to know who the “fascists” are. It’s the republican, conservative, right wing. — Fire Ologist

To answer your question. Yes. Hitler was a homicidal maniac who seized control of a country and directly caused the deaths of tens of millions. Why do I think that? Because that is how tyranny rolls. Do we really need to breakdown a “why” question about whether Hitler was a murderer? It’s just so tiresome.

I could say more as to how I take this to relate to the non-Orwellian instantiations of what the UN has coined hate speech, — javra

Please do.

I’ll give you my take. Absolute freedom of political speech, allowing even Hitler to speak, is the only way to prevent us from finding ourselves taken over by a Hitler. Hate speech legislation is no way to prevent Hitler from taking over. It’s a pathetically dumb idea. We need to be able to sound as hateful as we want when we see a Hitler taking over. We need to be able to scream “Trump is a vile fascist baby Hitler” if we want. The question isn’t what we can and cannot say because we can say anything; the question is WHAT will we say now that we have this freedom. Is it important to worry about Trump? Or what’s important to you?

But if all conservatives must be racist sexist pigs, what’s the point of asking their opinion on anything anyway? Right?

The left and the right can both be tyrannical, or authoritarian in their own way. It’s not really a comtinuum. Trump in his own way is just as bad as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Biden when it comes to this bullshit. They all end up dictatimg certain shit. Question is what, and are the checks and balances in place. I wasn’t afraid with Obama and Biden, and I’m not afraid with Trump.

Question for you (that we should all know the answer to): is a black lesbian voting against her own interests by default, if she votes republican?

bombarded with viewpoints that are abhorrent to you — Joshs

Not so much bombarded with views. Bombarded with condemnation maybe. It’s more annoying or tiresome than abhorrent.

I’m from Philly, currently in the suburbs, but born on Broad St and lived and worked in and around the city all my life. I always loved being from the city that hosted the scribing of such a great experiment in politics. Pretty cool to feel that history in the bricks around here. Something unique about the northeastern coastal cities - Boston to DC and all in between.

But the political debate today? That’s seems virtually the same where ever there is a Starbucks or a gas station around, city/countryside doesn’t matter so much. Concentrations of voters just make the same old story louder, but the one narrative we all have to face is: who is the “sexist, racist hater”. Right? So if people really want to get into it, the conversations are not about practical issues and views on them, it’s more about the threshold issue: “how could you be such a douche?”

Right? I mean if we are being honest. We have all been well-trained to know who the “fascists” are. It’s the republican, conservative, right wing. Giving them an inch is dangerous. Once we identify the republican/conservative, we at least know what type of character we are dealing with.

We need to address how Kirk was really a sexist about these women, and those trans. Was he being racist with Blacks here and illegal immigrants and whomever? How about Trump? How is Trump hateful this time, and that time? Always nefarious. Or Cavanaugh, or Clarence Thomas, or W. Bush, or whoever is republican, or whoever is conservative, on every channel (except we need to footnote Fox for some reason). And from every left-leaning leader, around the world, so that we all know: most republicans are racist, “hateful, hateful men…” It’s been this way since I first noticed in 1980 with Ronald Reagan (aka “OG Hitler”).

But before we go seceding the democrat rich cities from the anti-progressive rural country, what if Conservatives actually don’t hate the different races, and don’t hate the different sexes. Imagine that. What if we really don’t hate anyone and just have much better ideas for what to do to improve the machine we’ve built ourselves?

Then we might actually want to debate guns, or Israel, or trans with a conservative. But..naaaaah. It is way too “white supremecist” to discuss border wall or ICE policy with a conservative.

Do you want the 15% or so conservatives who live in the city-country within the country to stay, or are we talking total political cleansing? Perfect the echo chamber?

I don’t see anything so incorrigibly new about today that makes it necessary to seriously consider secession of cities from the country. And if not necessary, it sounds like an enormous effort.

You called me “shrill” and said I must feel “bombarded with viewpoints that are abhorrent to me” so you must feel bombarded too, no? Why else would you notice that about my words?

But should we blame the bombs we throw on those who somehow asked for them, or blame ourselves for throwing bombs at all? I blame myself. I don’t want to be shrill if by shrill I simply push you away.

I certainly don’t think I’m racist or being racist, or sexist or hateful.

Circling back, I know well what it is like to be hated for what I think and say, because people hate fascist, racist pigs, and I’m conservative, and like Hollywood agrees, we all know what that means. But I still don’t see any wisdom or benefit in putting the responsibility of regulating our “hate speech” in the hands of any shitty government.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the people who like the idea of hate speech legislation, where the ones who hated others most often?

the cities give us the closest
thing to a consensus on these values, allowing us to think of them as representing a ‘country within a country’ — Joshs

I certainly agree that Dems win control or have much power in the big cities and the Repubs win control or sway everywhere else.

But what I see, is that the cities feed off of the land and can’t survive without it. And the democrat cities also feed off of themselves. As soon as taxes start to chip away at growth, the rich people will flee the city. There can be no cutting out the conservative rural areas from a thriving city. I only mean thriving in one way: surviving with some growth.

Progressive/leftist ideas may work, but we would absolutely have to give up freedom and hand over much more power to the government. I don’t think China or anywhere on earth is enough inspiration to change the model that built the US.

We are going to have to figure out how to stop talking about who is the worst fascist dictator or who is the hater. It’s such a waste of time.

1)New York
2)Chicago
3)San Francisco
4)Los Angeles
5)Boston
6)Philadelphia
7)Seattle
8)Minneapolis
9)Milwaukee
10)Washington D.C.
11) Baltimore
12) Portland — Joshs

Solidarity on Election Day once every four years (towing the Dem party/media line like the morally superior sheep we are told to be) but what about the rest of the time?

Who are the murderers in those places, and who are they murdering the most? Dems or repubs?

What are the values unique to those cities that the Dems are fostering and building up but the repubs are resisting? What values and will promoting those values help make those cities flourish?

The value isn’t debate and more unity.

Solidarity around hatred for Trump and maga (because the media says so in sound bites) but solidarity with each other?

You are kidding yourself.

None of those places could be a country - they rely too much on being fed and protected from outside. DC literally needed federal troops to reduce gun fire on the streets. Nothing to learn about the strength of our cities and culture there?

All of the those places are failing, sorry to say. You are making my point. I live in one of them. Liberalism is crumbling and taking its supporters with it. The urban democratic base better keep getting their welfare checks and EBT cards and virtue signals and AOC feel good speeches, or the Dems will lose them too.

Liberal utopia is more like China. Let’s talk free speech or “hate speech” in China (does anyone really know, because China doesn’t really let a lot of light in.). Is that the country within a country - socialist/communist paradise?

Over the next 4-8 years I hope people start recognizing the difference between a man and a woman again. Probably not, we are so far gone.

Someone who truly values diversity and inclusion would lament the disparity between urban voting patterns and non-urban. There is no new world order anywhere near us - just more fighting for no good reason.

I do hope that the US has the resilience to move beyond its present malaise, and expect that it does. — Banno

I appreciate that. And we certainly will. Conservatism has been muzzled since Clinton in America (the reason Rush Limbaugh was born hiding in AM radio). Conservatives have let the adolescents pretend to be in charge too long. Celebrating the death of people just won’t fly anymore. I don’t think Dems realize how impossible it was for Trump to get re-elected, yet he did. That should really tell you something.

Isn’t anyone concerned that the violent right wing monsters aren’t rioting over Charlie Kirk’s death? Surely they must want to do something in response? What are they planning?

I’m sure the Dems fear riots and insurrections.

But instead they are going to get more conservative speeches and will lose more and more elections. That’s my prediction.

More conservative speeches, ie. more “hate speech”.

The bullshit won’t work forever. You have to actually make things function.

Liberal Canada just announced 13 billion in government spending to build low income housing due to the housing crisis. They are goin to build 4,000 homes. Do the math - that’s fucking the stupidest thing Inever heard.

Mamdani is going to be mayor of New York. Free buses and groceries for all (or a total mess made worse waiting for a republican to come in a clean it up.)

The strategy and its implementation to be in line with the right to freedom of
opinion and expression. The UN supports more speech, not less, as the key means to address hate speech — Banno

That is “newspeak” for “we want smart people telling the masses who we should hate.”

Anyone who supports more speech, not less, would quickly see there is no equitable way to define hate speech or regulate it.

I did my “q.v.” homework. You never gave an example of speech that harms. Definitions of hate speech aren’t examples. Tying the essence of hate speech to ethnicity, race, creed, is not showing how a word can harm and further, why we need to regulate this harm. Or how on earth a court could rule on words that harm.

Isn’t regulating hate speech like rating movies R versus PG?

Are you saying there are some words no one is grown up enough to hear ever? Because they harm?

"I already answered your question, you mindless, unwashed pleb, stop bothering me." :lol: — Outlander

Thanks. Love it. Is there such a thing as Love speech?

I am always curious why he bothers with these non-responsive responses.

I think he hates me. Maybe that is why he likes hate speech regulation, because people cant be trusted not to spread hate.

In some contexts, speech is used as a form of intimidation. A very effective one at that. — Outlander

Yes for sure, and bullies need to have their ass kicked. But there is no way to regulate speech around intimidation. And some people aren’t intimidated. Some people are stronger than bullies - these types of people don’t want some weak ass politician helping them protect themselves against mean words.

But you and I both know that no such tests are forthcoming and the claims are piffle. — NOS4A2

I was actually going to mention loud speech, but then, that is a physical assault has nothing to do with the content of the speech.

I’m glad you understand free political speech has to be fairly absolute. I also know you don’t understand how fraud works or libel either. But those are not really relevant in a conversation about political speech like Kirk’s and Kimmel’s.

Anyone who likes hate speech regulation doesn’t mind the government deciding what content is good and what content is bad. That’s the beginning of the end of freedom. There is a reason protecting speech is the very first amendment.

q.v. — Banno

I don’t know what that means.

All kinds of speech is regulated - fraud, conspiracy, libel, slander, incitement.

But if in a political context, and the only harm we are talking about is hurt feelings, America should never let some politician regulate that. Why would we?

Are hurt feelings the reason speech should be regulated? What do you mean “speech that harms”?

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make.

being able to express an opinion while not being permitted to incite or induce violence. Looking at other jurisdictions might show that the approach in the US, expressed hereabouts as a naïve acceptance of a refusal to forbid any speech, is fraught with inconsistency. We must acknowledge the capacity of speech to injure, beyond mere offence. — Banno

The capacity of speech to injure, or the capacity of speech to lead to injury? How can speech injure?

In a political context, like on the Senate floor or in a debate among adults, what exactly does “capacity of speech to injure” mean? What’s an example of political speech that, by simply speaking, another person is injured?

Conspiracy can be speech that leads to injury (as opposed to speech that causes injury). But a discussion about who is more hateful, a trans activist towards Charlie Kirk or vice versa, no matter what is said between them, cannot be speech that leads to injury. It is not possible. It’s just opinion and belief and facts analyzed and arguments tested - nothing for the government to regulate at all.

The distinction of a perlocution does not supplant and replace the judgment of the listener and her decisions to act, and it is only these acts that can cause harm - such actions happen after the debate stops. While the debate goes on, before anyone gets shot, illocution and perlocution are up for discussion, and have nothing to do with the “capacity of speech to injure.”

Inciting or “inducing” violence needs to be fairly clear, and is very contextual. Charlie would never meet the criteria for incitement. Neither would Kimmel or Colbert.

People who hear ideas and then decide to shoot people or destroy property, or commit some other crime, have to be the ones held responsible first and foremost. That’s not speech leading to harm. That’s assholes, or criminals fully responsible for being assholes and criminals no matter what speech they heard or who said it. What adult thinks otherwise? Political speech and debate and opinion and discussion and rallies - have nothing to do with “the capacity of speech to injure”

Legally defined and enforced “hate speech” adds nothing beneficial to a society that believes in free speech. I can handle hearing any idea whatsoever, if it is a discussion, and I get to respond. That’s the political environment the US constitution built. “Hate” in a speech is just more content.

Why are liberal communities composed of sheep but your community isn’t? — Joshs

Sheep are all over the place for sure. The point was about the media. The shepherd. The media (when they don’t cave) will always cheerlead for the Dems. That’s the only reason Biden made it all the way to July’s debate - the media told us (sheep) he was fit. But now that the news media is losing credibility for some people, (because of things like Biden making it to July for instance) they aren’t going to be as effective anymore.

AOC just said on the floor of the Senate: “His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/aoc-defends-her-vote-against-165240740.html

Few things to make clear:

1. Although it should be needless to say, AOC and all Americans have a right to say and think every word of what AOC just said. That is “a straightforward matter,” at least it should be. We not only agree no one should be shot for saying things like this quote, but that no law can abridge saying it in any way.

Right? We all have to agree with that - it just basically restates the 1st Amendment.

2. In the protected quote, AOC says Kirk is ignorant, seeking not unity, but to disenfranchise. Ok, maybe so. But point 2 here is that, now AOC has engaged in debate. This second point is the reason for free speech, protected in point 1 above. We protect debate (political) speech no matter what, so that we each get to seek a hearing of exactly what we think. AOC’s constituents elected her to say what she thinks, and she disagrees strongly with Kirk, saying he was “ignorant” for instance. (Astute…)

3. Others get to agree or disagree, or debate, with AOC. It’s never one sided.

All three are important. The principle on 1, and the content exchanged in 2 and 3. That’s the bedrock foundation of our political system.

“Hate speech” is a notion for those who can’t or just won’t debate. Or those who bring a gun or a protest slogan and a bullhorn to a conversation….

Pam Bondi is an idiot. She’ll be gone in the next few months, unless she gets some kind of win soon.

We are not one country now — Joshs

We should keep metaphors and facts clear. Kimmel wasn’t silenced by the government, for instance, he was fired by his wimpy, cowardly boss, ABC/Disney. ABC has been doing it for years now.

If you say “we are not one country” is that a helpful rhetorical tactic? Towards what goal?

North, south, east coast, west coast, city, farm, black, white, little Italy, china town, rich/poor - the American system survived a massive civil war. We survived the 1960s and the murder if so many politicians, and 2020 elections and a maga insurrection. Nothing really new about a free nation’s people at odds with their own unity.

I don’t think the metaphor that “we are not one country” helps. We are more than one country. For many, this is a question of whether we are one family or not. I think agreeable conversations can exist. Ask Van Jones.

We should learn something from the Kirk shooting, and together, turn over a new leaf.

But most of us probably won’t do either one.

Trump’s success isn’t due to urban America getting anything ‘wrong’, any more than Erdogan’s or Orban’s or Le Pen’s or Nigel Farage’s success is due to urbanites in those countries making some mistake of political calculation. — Joshs

I wouldn’t compare what is happening in America to what is happening in any other contemporary of America. I wouldn’t do that in 1780, 1880, 1980 or now. America is different than those other places. These generalizations of yours are not what I was saying.

Trump’s success is because people in the cities, in the suburbs, on the farms, of every economic class, of all types of sexual preference, in every color, Hispanic, Native American, etc, etc, etc - so many agree. Basic street facts, like who is male, and who is the bully, and who needs help, and who is full of shit all of the time (Crockett) - they can’t be hidden forever. Media is losing and the Dems are losing with them.

And what is lost? The argument. So now, having lost control of the debate, as a last attempt, we accuse our enemies of “hate speech”. The very notion of government enforced “hate speech” and “hate crimes” strangle debate and free speech. Or we shoot them the debaters in the neck.

Hate speech - what a shame. It’s embarrassing really. So hypocritical too. It’s only hate speech when you hate it, and when you hate something, where is the hate??? Not in the speech.

Just win the fucking debates. Try that - like AOC is trying to win about the resolution for Kirk, with her insights and wisdom.

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand — Outlander

No. I’m talking about people and the media not understanding how bad it is to see a guy shot for having a discussion. Probably not something to treat callously. The same people who think firing Jimmy Kimmel is a travesty of justice and fills them with fear for democracy.

laws should indeed be moral — javra

Yes of course. To promote good and prevent or redress badness. But we look to the government to tell us what the law is, not what morality is.

good to hear that the white middle class males — Banno

Wait, should “good to hear” and “white middle class males” even be allowed in the same sentence? Sounds like a hate-filled dog-whistle. :joke: Do we need a law to ban such obviously hateful juxtapositions in our thinking?

Or should no law abridge free speech?

liberal bias has been evident, but it has been only a bias as typically any administration gets some roasting from the political comedians. — ssu

“Some” roasting? Demonstrably, stupendously false. Biden wasn’t roasted until the democrats rammed Kamala Harris down everyone’s throats. Liberals are shocked to hear right wing ideas because they hear them so infrequently in the media. Main stream media is normally a safe space. Like the university classroom.

To a liberal, a simple right wing idea is hate speech. “Deport illegal immigrants.” That’s hate. Even though it was the policy of Obama and Biden. Trump’s somehow just different.

Ridiculous. Inconsistent. Incoherent.

The truth of the deep leftward bias of all legacy and main stream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, LA Times, Wash. Post, CNN, all things Hollywood) is the fulcrum behind Trump’s continued success and appeal - since 2016.

Libs refuse to see it. It’s a total blind spot. It’s why dems will continue losing outside of the areas where Al of their sheep flock.

The current legacy news media death rattle is due to their own inability to self-reflect honestly. They pander to half of the population. They are so biased. The right remains a sleeping underground of our culture. Even with Trump in office. It’s been stomped underground by the media for 30 plus years.

It’s still hateful to be republican. At least according to the media. And to expert libs.

And libs are so scared because of all the media bogeymen - instead of just talking to a right winger, like Kirk. Instead of talking to him, people are happy to celebrate his death.

The democrats have lost on substance with regard to immigration and the border, the economy, foreign policy, Ukraine, patriotism. The dems have no policies that address anything that matters to the country. And they are (currently, probably temporarily) losing the tactical advantage of being able to rely on the media to uncritically telegraph and parrot their agenda. It’s not because the media is moving right, but because the media is losing credibility. It’s because Jimmy Kimmel squandered his position. The media doesn’t know how to be fair about anything - they aren’t used to it. If they wanted to be fair they would have to fire half of their people, because everyone is a progressive. Absolute echo chamber.

Before Colbert and Kimmel (who aren’t making very much money, which affects the answer to the question: “are they worth all the grief?”), Roseanne Barr, was fired for saying some ignorant crap about the Obama administration and for sounding like a racist. Who gave a shit about democracy then? Who celebrated then? Was that so different? Was it any different? It was even ABC.

happy to occasionally be offended. — Banno

Offense is so done as a motivator for political action.

“Hate speech” is a joke, right? It’s not a law in the US because we all love to spew hate speech, right? From all sides. We love to offend. Almost as much as we cherish taking offense.

Offense is like pure gold for the left. No one ever cares how anyone else feels, but here is how I feel, and the more offended I am, the more interesting my instagram account will be.

Like adolescents. “You just don’t understand how much it hurts me….” And “this time it’s different.”

It’s no different. If Trump is limiting free speech, that is gravely bad. But what is so new to you libs? You who didn’t care about Biden’s Orwellian “Disinformation Governance Board”?

Government should stay out of all of it. Media should consistently and fairly report the facts. But they never did. Because libs give the government too much power, too many passes, and do not hold the media accountable at all.

Total irresponsibility.

so he shouldn't be allowed to make further comment...? — Banno

Kimmel hasn’t been arrested and thrown in jail. He was fired for being a highly paid ABC employee and talking shit too many times to too many members of ABC’s audience. He is going to make a ton of further comment. He is going to make a ton of money. He is an absolute rock star for the left now. Unless he begs for his job back. Because he is free to do that too.

If you are worried that the people are not being “allowed” to comment, were you concerned about speech when Kirk was shot? Oh that’s right, you reminded everyone Kirk supported the freedom to own guns.

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show?

Or should Twitter not be allowed to suspend Donald Trump’s twitter account? Are you saying that?

Zero coherence. Zero rigor in the analysis.

Shooting Kirk is just bad. For all of us. For all politics. For all cultures. It’s an easy topic. The left won’t look directly at the world they have created.

I don’t know what you are getting at.

We don’t need laws telling us what is good or bad. We need discussions and communities deciding what is good and bad. Then we need to agree on laws that support the good and laws that protect against the bad. But I don’t need a law telling me that “murder is bad”, or a law telling me that “cohort B are subhumans” is punishable hate speech and not just some stupid opinion.

I have no problem hearing out someone else’s stupid arguments and opinions. In fact, I want to protect that as a right.

Of itself it is only speech. And, as with a good portion of speech in general, it intends to influence the mindsets of others. — javra

So what? The fact that speech can influence others and lead to laws is how all good things happen too.

Hate speech is dumb and is for dumb people that I can deal with myself and don’t need the government, but the notion of legally defined hate speech is Orwellian.

What's happening now is — frank

What is happening now is, the tyranny supported by the liberal media for 40 years is being challenged.

But this is no new threat to democracy. This is the same threat, built really since the 1960’s, except now it is being turned against the same media-progressive-agenda-complex that built this tyrannical climate.

Don’t get me wrong - To the extent Trump and the right wing media are using the same tyrannical methods against the liberal media and against progressive political debate, Trump is just as wrong. The FCC and Pam Bondi and Trump may be abusing power. Full stop.

But didn’t Jimmy Kimmel celebrate when Tucker Carlson was fired over bullshit, for instance?

Didn’t we all know Joe Biden was not fit for a second term? The media wasn’t sure until Jake Tapper wrote a book about it, well after the fact.

Any threats to democracy or undue media influence to speak of there?

Nothing new is happening today except who is feeling threatened and who is misusing government power.

It’s the same shit, different viscosity.

Government over-reach is a huge threat. Republicans have feared it all of my life and I’m 56. But now, because it is Trump, we have libs saying “threat to democracy” all of the time.

The problem is, we should have the same fear about Trump as we have about what any president can do, what the legislature can do, and what the judiciary should not be doing. But instead, the libs only fear these things when they disagree with who is on office because they are feeling the impact.

As a great example is misdiagnosing the problem of government over-reach and tyranny, the libs think giving power to someone like Mamdani is a good way to combat people like Trump, when Mamdani is running faster towards the same threatening cliff of too much governmental influence.

:up:

Defenders of the notion of “hate speech” are also the best defenders of notions like “gender is a social construct”.

Pick a lane.

If something so clear as gender is actually vague and socially constructed, then something so vague as “hate speech” should quickly be recognized as even more vague than gender, so why are we thinking we could define it at all; Or, if you can make “hate speech” a useful term for laws and policies, you should easily be able to at least define “male” and “female” with some measure of objectivity, at least enough for bathrooms and sporting event policies (those should be so simple to the genius who can define “hate speech”). But the defenders of defining “hate speech” laws/enforcement don’t do that.

Utterly incoherent.

Fine if you want to say you can’t define “woman”. But then, you better not define “hate speech” for purposes of making policy, because who should believe anything you say? “Woman” can’t possibly be harder to define than “hate”, or if it is, hate can’t possibly be easy enough to define that we can enforce laws about it.

No self awareness of the in consistencies.

———

If you try to really give the definition and essence of “hate speech” I think you’ll find that it adds nothing to a conversation about political policy.

Hate “speech”, in fact, should be protected by law, not made illegal. (Pam Bondi was wrong.)

Person A murders person B. That’s murder. We have a law against it. Finding hateful motives might help find the murderer, but once you find the murderer, who gives a crap what they hate? Deal with the murder under the law.

The only political issue we should ask about speech is, was it political speech, or was it some thing else? If it is political speech, we all need to protect it, and the government has to stay out of our way. Free political speech is essential to stopping tyranny from taking hold. But if your speech is conspiracy to murder, or inciting immanent violence, or fraud that leads to actual harm, then the government can and should be able to step in a regulate it.

That’s it. Is it speech, or is it some verbal component of some unlawful act.

“Here is the gun I want you to use to murder that guy.” That’s not just speech, and is instead conspiracy to murder. What is the act, and when can/should we regulate acts?

But if the act is giving an opinion on any topic, it’s political speech, and there should be absolutely no governmental limits whatsoever. There can be social limits and private limits, but no governmental limits.

So to be fair, if the FCC or Pam Bondi threatened ABC/Disney’s license in any tangible or specific way in order to silence Jimmy Kimmel, that is a huge problem. That’s tyranny. But if Jimmy Kimmel was privately fired because his private bosses wanted to fire him for their own private corporate policy reasons, that’s called life in the jungle of free people. That’s called the free market of ideas. That’s called living the dream in a free society.

It is the same freedom enjoyed by ABC that allows them give Jimmy a microphone as allows them to take it away from him.

So the problems of all of these people being fired for celebrating Kirk’s death have nothing to do with the issue of free speech. That is about private policy and private employment - not law enforcement, not the first amendment.

How hard is that to understand? Simple consistency, based on the first amendment. Firing Jimmy is as much a freedom protected by the first amendment as was Jimmy’s freedom to talk bullshit about Kirk’s murder.

(And to be fair, if the FCC really did threaten ABC and you don’t like that, where was all of the outrage when so many other governmental interventions in the media occurred? Does anyone think we can find much more threatening statements from many more liberal democratic lawmakers about Fox’s license, about Tucker Carlson’s job, about conservative AM radio? Do you think Pelosi, AOC, Biden (Disinformation Governance Board), and many, many others in progressive government had any opinions about silenced and de-platformed media on the right?)

Hate is a moral issue. Not a political one. We don’t need government playing church and choosing who is hateful and who isn’t for us. We need freedom, to fight (through debate and argument) amongst ourselves about what is hateful and who isn’t.

When a politician “spews hate” they typically do so in some substantive context. Like saying “Donald Trump is a racist pig and must be punched in the face and pulled out of office” - sounds like hate, but who cares about that? The question is “what did Donald do that requires we remove him from office?” We can talk about those things. But the hate behind the word “pig” - who really gives a shit? When I hear “that person is a pig” and I also hear “I have no substantive argument, just my feelings.”

———

“Trump sycophants take when licking their God-Emperors ass..”

Everyone is dug in. We are all so superior to those we disagree with. No one wants to actually debate, or just listen.

What amazes me is how precise and rigorous many of us are when it comes to using terms like “knowledge” or “certainty” or “being” or “becoming” or “essence” or “modal collapse” or “concept” versus “idea”…. And the result of this precision is often how impossible it is to say anything solid about any of them. Page after page, deconstructing the grounds and effects of saying anything. Uncovering all of metaphysical, epistemological and ontological questions and assumptions…

But then, many of these same people are so quickly willing to say we know what Charlie Kirk meant, and understand his use of some of those same words clearly enough to convict him as a deplorable, hateful, harm causing son of bitch.

As far as I can tell, Charlie Kirk talked. He said things. (Like we do here.) Someone else shot him. Kirk is dead now. The other guy is arrested.

Who cares about what Kirk said? Unless he expressly said “please shoot me”, it’s all irrelevant to a more important question.

What do you think about setting up a tent, inviting a bunch of people, grabbing a microphone to speak to them, offering a microphone to others so they can speak, and getting shot dead?

How does that sound?

The rest of the facts and opinions and debatable content and observations and analysis don’t matter. At least they shouldn’t matter at all first.

Aside from the personal crap for his poor wife and kids, and aside from the fact that none of us should judge anyone else so harshly, who cares if Kirk was a good guy or not?

We can banish him to hell or congratulate ourselves on having a better world without Kirk in it later - what about assassination of anyone, ever, in a tent, giving out hats and tee shirts? What about political debate fora? What about our own tent TPF?

Shouldn’t all of us bigmouths care about someone being killed for having a big mouth?

We can’t start this discussion without agreement about killing anyone in tent like that. If instead we start off with “killing people in tents like that is bad, but…” we skipped what is important about the topic.

Aren’t Kirk’s views on the 2nd amendment secondary to his embodiment (not his views) of the first amendment?

Is it bad that some guy is dead like that or not? He wasn’t even an elected official. He, literally, was all talk. And someone shot him.

The killing of Malcom X was equally as heinous an affront to humanity. No matter what Malcom thought about bullets, or what Charlie thought about guns. Who really gives a shit what either man thought or said at a moment like this - what the fuck kind of people entertain in any level assassination of private citizens because of things they say in a political debate forum?

How hard is that not to make bedrock among us - on a debate forum?!!!

The part that makes me wonder is how much violence we're already responsible for.

And that is pretty fucked up. — Moliere

Yeah, but “how much violence we are already responsible for” is also a diversion. More fog. This is an easy one if you have any principles at all.

Unless you really mean to ask: when should we be allowed to kill our political debate opponents?

Isn’t that the same as asking, when can we throw out the rules of any game we’ve all agreed to play for sake of some other new game? As if in such circumstances there is such a thing as a judge or ground to answer such question anymore.

We don’t get to bring a gun to a debate and have a debate. No one should celebrate what happened on any level. Charlie was as precious and loved as Malcom, and so many others.

We should be convicting ourselves - instead we build grounds for the next bullet.

———

What logical fallacy is involved here:
- p1: supporting private gun ownership
- p2: saying and recognizing that this will create a platform where private people can wrongfully kill each other
-p3: getting shot dead
Therefore: he asked for it and got what he wanted, or can’t complain.

Count pointed out how this is a stupid argument.
It’s like a trans man supporting DEI even if hiring that Asian woman means that Trans man won’t be hired - we don’t have to conclude the trans man asked not to be hired.

Yet I think our resident rigorously genius Banno basically made this argument.

You guys are willing to post page after page showing how we can’t know anything for certain, but ahhh, fuck Charlie, he was a dick about trans people, he said Jesus way too much, and wouldn’t shut up. So he’s dead, let’s move on and talk about Israel, and Trump clearly inciting an insurrection…

Weak. We must do better.

Kirk’s murder was bad all around for everyone.

Folk seem to think that if, if we know something then it is true, then we can never be mistaken.

Think on it a bit.

If we think we know something and it turns out to be false, then we didn't know it. — Banno

That seems accurate. But so does this:

[it is false that] J, T, and B are three separate and reliably verifiable properties of every knowledge-claim. This is also false, as is the sub-idea that the three properties are supposed to be separable: as if we could have knowledge of each of them separate from the others.

JTB is a tripartite schema, which means that the three components are not separable vis-a-vis knowledge. — Leontiskos

I agree with Leon, but then, because of the possibility of error, what is happening when we think we know something but we do not? Wouldn’t we have to be able to separate J, T or B from the others to think we know something when in fact what we know is missing J, T or B? Or are all three destroyed, along with K, when we are in error?

you're free to argue that whites are being oppressed and that women aren't. — praxis

Maybe, but I asked if it was woke to argue these things?

My point is that it might be procedurally woke to argue power, equity, identity. But it’s not substantively woke to argue whites are being oppressed and women aren’t.

Do you agree with that at least?

the impact of woke is to silence the centre. T — Jeremy Murray

about trans rights, the woke approach isn't working in some respects. — Jeremy Murray

These are in line with my points. Certain woke-friendly principles and goals - such as equity, inclusiveness, defeating bias - are perfectly reasonable, and worthy of development. But many of the ways these principles and goals are implemented (by the woke) require, reverse-racism, inequity, unreasonableness, intolerance and exclusion. The impact, in the name of hearing voices, is to silence voices. The impact, in the name of victims, often creates victims. This is what we see between trans and women in sports. (It sounds like the type of contradictory cannibalism you might be painfully too familiar with.)

And the woke are unable to properly deal with shooting Charlie Kirk, for instance. The general woke response to Kirk’s shooting is that, it was wrong of course, but Kirk was a hateful idiot who practically asked for it. (One could argue that the true woke response is just, good riddance, but let’s push that to the extremists response.)

Shouldn’t the response have been, long ago, let’s beat Kirk in a public debate with own his microphone? After all, free speech is for every political speech. So violence against him should have been as horrifying to the woke as it was to Kirk supporters - we’ve all been silenced. The debate is over now. No one gets to win it.

But the woke have their own biases and desires, so the best they can say is “well I didn’t want him shot, but there certainly isn’t anything to cry about.” Yes there is - woke needs better advocates now. If they exist.

Interpreting events, institutions, and cultural norms in terms of power, inequality, and identity categories — praxis

That’s really helpful.

I would say two things about this:

1. What it says, in itself, reflects woke methodology. Interpreting events in a particular, woke way, reflects interpreting events in terms of power, distribution of equity, and identity categories.

2. There is more to woke than simply this method; there are specific woke conclusions one is to come to when using this method properly or one still hasn’t grasped wokeness. In other words, one could interpret events, institutions, and cultural norms in terms of power, inequality, and identity categories, but if one concludes from this process of interpretation that whites are being oppressed, or that females are not being oppressed, one has not achieved wokeness despite employing its methods.

I think it is simplistic to ask you to agree, because I’ve used the word “proper.”

But I’ll ask anyway. It seems to me 1, as method, doesn’t go far enough to capture what is woke.

Would you agree? There are woke conclusions and proper analysis, and there are unwoke conclusions and improper analysis (even of one is interpreting according to power, equity and identity categories)? So woke is more than method (it has its dogma).

very late in the game to be playing games. — praxis

What were you trying to say?

wokeness doesn’t go back to Karl Marx — praxis

You’re right. It’s more like Rousseau. Went mainstream in the 1960s. Institutionalized by 2000s.

You sound like you could say what woke is. Weird. Why not, instead of saying I was wrong, just give us the accurate information. Do you see the “End of woke”? I don’t. But then, maybe woke never got started?

Wittgensteinian. And an ever-moving target, — jorndoe

Isn’t that a positive feature of woke ideology? Everything in motion on a sliding scale - gender, definitions of “woke”, etc.

You could have tried. — jorndoe

Tried what?

Are the Trumpests "anti-woke"? — earlier

Do you mean, are people who voted for Trump against woke ideology (generally speaking of course)?

Or is this still the question:

Selecting people by merit instead of tradition/snobbery/conformity seems like the right thing to do.
Is that anti-conservative? — jorndoe

No, it’s not anti-conservative. Selecting by merit isn’t progressive or conservative or liberal or maga. Woke didn’t invent diverse pools to select from, or the criteria for selection that values “merit”.

The question is, what do you assign merit to, when making your selection? How important is it that we find a black woman, or Hispanic person, and look past the white men in the pool? Choosing the person with the most qualifications may mean choosing a white man. If being consistent with “merit” as the highest value. How does that fit in a wokety scale?

——

It is precisely because we are not equal that we are diverse. So woke policy has to be at odds with its ideological values. Woke policy has to pick a woke value and then pit it against another woke value.

When we value both equity and diversity together we have to exclude individuals from the narrow groups people can be divided into, all in order to re-include groups (no longer focused on individuals) in one wider, diverse group. Right? You have to put all of the blacks together, all of the whites separated out, then sub groups of women separated, from men, then now the trans folks - all excluded from each others’ groups. Then you can judge the super group that re-includes them all and judge whether it is equitably diversified, again, no longer concerned with this particular individual or that one, but merely concerned with the group they have been placed in and the ratio of numbers of members of sub-groups….

So which is the priority? Putting people in their diverse exclusive groups to give them recognition for their diversity, or overlooking the shallow, ignorant differences to see how all people qua people are valuable, have unique merit and deserve equal protection under one law? In which case we cannot evaluate specific situations based on generalizations and identity politics and groups - but need to look at each individual uniquely. And look at each Board of Directors uniquely. Etc…

the switch towards a "thin" anthropology, and the liberal phobia of strong ethical claims tends to unmoor them from any strong commitment to an ordering telos that structures the "self-development" they intend to promote. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. Unmoored is the post-enlightenment state of affairs. And it is self-defeating: in the name of freedom, this unmooring makes us unable to be free, as in the name of self-development much advice diminishes the individual.

talk of “your good” or “finding your authentic self.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

My good will never be as good as the good. I am authentically in flux, so by only seeking my authentic self, without seeking virtue and objective moral guidance from outside myself, I never actualize something that is only potential in me. Basically, if one admits to oneself what one’s authentic self really is (namely, a potentially good person in need of assistance) one should be drawn out of one’s self (or instructed to look deeper into experience than merely at one’s self).

In the Western tradition ascetic/spiritual exercises were meant to re-order the soul toward truth, goodness, and the divine. In Buddhism, mindfulness is embedded in the Eightfold Path and oriented towards liberation. By contrast, modern adaptations tend to treat these disciplines as mere tools for the self-interested individual, e.g., a means of coping, maximizing productivity, reducing stress, or achieving “authenticity.” I have seen this particularly in some pieces on Stoicism I've read that seem to be largely aimed at the "tech-bro" crowd. A commitment to truth gets shoved aside for a view of philosophy as a sort of "life hack." — Count Timothy von Icarus

All of the transcendent, metaphysical aspects of philosophy have been mocked as superstition. Thrown out once and for all by Nietzsche and buried by post-modernism. But the self-helpers still find a sort of role-playing as metaphysician yields some physical benefits (for some unexplained reason), so they dress up like a philosopher to satisfy the deepest human cravings with tidbits and appetizers despite no sense of principle (because despite some traditional practices yielding practical benefits, “‘self’ help” is anathema to most all of our traditions. The East teaches us that seeking/finding any authentic self (in the liberal sense of self) is the opposite of enlightenment, and judeo-Christian-Islamism teaches we need God’s help, not just our own.

fragments of older ascetic traditions that have been hollowed out by modern ideologies. — Count Timothy von Icarus

With no respect at all paid to these older sources. We are too enlightened now to truly admire anyone pre-1969 (except maybe Marx, Darwin and Nietzsche).

Philosophy itself has been thoroughly academicatized and professionalized. Outdoor education and similar areas might have a better claim to its ancient mantel at this point (that is, they come much closer to how it was practiced) — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have always said that wisdom most often is found outside of academia. This is the case by conscious choice of many academics. Some universities are downright dangerous places for some individuals who naively seek wisdom there.

That it is: Existence
What it is: Essence — Baden

So are you saying:

That it is: Existence: the for-itself
What it is: Essence: the in-itself

our epistemic practices require certainties that are not proved from within the practice but make proof possible. — Sam26

Maybe not “certainties”? So “proof” is aspirational, or ideal. But the metaphysic outlined - namely, proof sites within epistemic practice, and so proving cannot be applied to the grounds (certainties) underlying the epistemology - sounds right to me.

Much of the literature treats Gettier as a mortal wound to JTB. I don’t. Gettier cases work only if we confuse seeming justified with being justified. If the support for a true belief essentially depends on a false ground, the belief fails the J-condition, full stop. I mark this with an anti-false-grounds constraint: justification must not essentially rely on falsehood. That preserves the classical core without endless epicycles. — Sam26

I agree 100%. K=JTB remains instructive. Useful under Wittegenstein as it is under Plato, and for many others.

hunt for one essence of justification; I look for overlapping patterns that guide our reasoning. — Sam26

Why isn’t the process of hunting for one essence the exact same process as looking for overlapping patterns that guide? I never understood the need to rebel against the notion of intelligible essence - whatever emerges and however it emerges that we call “knowledge,” it always still involves a “what it is to be.” K=JTB. Essence is what K speaks of. If K can ever be Justified as True, then Believing K is as much a possession of an essence as it is any other act that would demonstrate what one believes one knows. What is known, is what can be spoken; what can be spoken, distinguishes the essence of some thing spoken about. (But this may all be an unnecessary can of worms)

Truth and justification remain conceptually distinct, two different “grammars” in Wittgenstein’s sense, even though, in practice, our only route to truth runs through justificatory methods.

Truth: how the world is (a world constraint on speech acts).

Justified: whether one’s reasons meet the public standards of the operative language-game (science, law, everyday perception, math).

We don’t reduce truth to justification, and we don’t pretend justification is free of truth. We couple them so that justification tracks truth (anti-false-grounds + practice-safety), and Wittgensteinian hinges stop the regress (and circularity) that would make any coupling impossible. — Sam26

I agree.

I see them each contributing to knowledge as like a verb and a noun contribute to an assertion. True and justified may seem to do similar work, but if we keep one as the verb and the other the a noun, we see the two functions they fulfill. “True” references “how the world is” - a truth, there in the world, like a noun is fixed in sentence. “Justified” is a the process of matching reasons with the public standards and quality of the game play - this is a process, like a verb.

So the ‘justified’ part of JTB is the process, and the ‘true’ part is an end goal achieved by that process.

This is why it makes sense that it is circular but not collapsing (it is sort of self-affirming, making something self-evident within the community).

And the reason ‘justified and true’ can seem unsatisfyingly circular comes from the sense that we can make nouns of verbs and verbs into nouns (I think). Instead of “justified” (verb) “true” (adjective for the noun) belief, we could abuse language a bit and talk about “truing up” (verb, process) a “justified” (adjective) belief. So as long as we keep process and target separate, justification and truth do not consume each other but are shown as distinct moments inside knowledge.

Does it undermine the strong rejection to rationally illuminate the grounds for strong rejection? — Leontiskos

That is an interesting question because I believe it is frequently how people act (ignoring reasons associated with deeming something beyond the pale), but it is not necessary to do so, and indeed, if we abandon rational illumination, we abandon community and the possibility of morality.

We are talking about “strong” rejection, and this highlights the passion and emotion in it. To recognize what is beyond the pale draws with it an emotional response. Someone decapitates a kitten and an emotional revulsion is instinctual. But to recognize what is beyond the pale is also a specific judgement, a deeming, and these specific determinations can be “rationally illuminated”. Taking a breath and being rational about a “strong” rejection, will take some of the passion out of it in favor of dispassionate reasoning that can illuminate. And so in a sense, rational illumination undermines passionate strong rejection. And when passions alone or primarily drive the deeming of something beyond the pale, someone might also deem reasons may undermine the determination made from emotion.

But I am not sure this emotional/psychological analysis takes your question far enough.

As we all at times think, the depravity of some actions is so obviously beyond the pale, to even ask to illuminate the grounds for such judgments is to call something already obvious into question, and thereby potentially undermine its obviousness, which in turn undermines whether it is truly beyond the pale in the first place. This all means someone might judge that, when faced with what is clearly deemed beyond the pale, there is no reason to resist one’s passionate response nor is there reason to seek the illuminating details that justify one’s judgment. And further, as we are fallible when seeking rational illumination, we may undermine our own intellectual confidence by failing to reasonably illuminate what we have already strongly rejected and passionately deemed beyond the pale. (Like we just know 2+2=4 is beyond the pale, but if we can’t show our math, we may force ourselves to question something we passionately already know is true.)

But seeing rational illumination as undermining what has been deemed beyond the pale, seems like intellectual cowardice. And in my estimation, an unwillingness or inability to engage in rational illumination and discussion of one’s grounds for one’s determinations is part of the essence of behavior that may be beyond the pale. A determination of what is beyond the pale is not merely the product of strong emotion (or it is often based on reasons as well). Maybe the person who says “beheading kittens is always wrong so any person who did that or does that should be written off as beyond the pale” is being purely emotional about their esteem of kittens, but reasoning and logical inference and sound observation remain available for discussion. “Kitten killers are beyond the pale” is like any other determination, subject to rational scrutiny. And whenever one chooses to ignore rational scrutiny, or one cannot control one’s emotions enough to allow room for rational scrutiny, one is flirting with what I see as the most basic component of behavior that is beyond the pale, namely the avoidance of reason.

To apply what I am saying, Charlie Kirk said things many folks believed were beyond the pale. He wanted policy that many saw as harmful beyond the pale. But, to me, he did what he did in a debate forum, in the public square, inviting challenge and seeking rational grounds and illumination in every subject matter. Someone else deemed his very act of talking to be beyond the pale, that Kirk’s words did actual harm, and had to shut those actions down by killing him. Do I write off the shooting as beyond the pale without giving the shooter a hearing? No, as I would be treating the shooter the same way it looks like the shooter treated Charlie Kirk. But if the shooter will not or cannot rationally illuminate his grounds for shooting Charlie Kirk, then I have reasonable ground to deem the shooting as beyond the pale. And if the shooter asked me what I thought before he shot Charlie, and the shooter couldn’t or wouldn’t provide a reasonable basis to justify killing Kirk, I would tell him that shooting Kirk will be beyond the pale.

The pale, it seems to me, is reasonable discussion. What is beyond the pale is always in part beyond discussion. So, in any debate, nothing can be said that is beyond the pale. (In a debate is key context here - one can do tremendous harm beyond the pale with words, but not so in a debate among adults).

I still don’t have grounds to deem the shooter himself as beyond the pale. I cannot write him off and bury him in a ditch just because I saw him shoot Kirk. We must have faith, and find hope, and forgive, and love, and use reason and our words and our example to change hearts. Don’t get me wrong, shooting people for their political speech alone is always wrong and beyond the pale, but it is precisely the silence and foreclosing of discussion that makes it wrong, and so we must interrogate the shooter, seek his rational illumination and then judge the nature of his crime. I suspect he will not be able to justify shooting a man like that. But it would be beyond the pale to judge the shooter without hearing him out. (And this has nothing to do with criminal judgement and punishment - we all have a law against assignation, and if we catch someone cold in the act of assassination, they go to jail or get the death penalty - present the facts and apply the law; but we don’t judge them evil, or find their soul or whole being beyond the pale without a hearing. Such judgment may be further beyond the pale then the motivations behind the shooting.)

they will reduce their price if you hire a DEI officer? — Mijin

How about deny a claim if the insured isn’t able to demonstrate compliance with the law?

Ask your broker to get you competing quotes with a DEI officer and without.

Call a couple insurance companies. Or do you only trust AI…

Strong Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs can positively impact a company's insurability and premium costs for Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI). Conversely, reducing DEI efforts may increase risk exposure and potentially lead to higher costs.
Here is a breakdown of the relationship between DEI officers and employment insurance.
Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI)
An EPLI policy protects a company from claims of discrimination, wrongful termination, harassment, and other employment-related misconduct. A dedicated DEI officer can influence EPLI in several ways:
Risk reduction: By developing and implementing robust DEI programs, training, and equitable employment practices, a DEI officer can help mitigate the risks of discrimination and harassment claims. This proactive approach can make a company a more attractive risk to insurers.
Favorable premiums: Insurers often evaluate a company's internal controls and risk management. For companies with strong, well-documented DEI initiatives, underwriters may offer lower EPLI premiums due to the perceived lower risk of litigation.
Underwriting scrutiny: As the legal and social landscape around DEI shifts, insurers are paying closer attention to a company's approach. Underwriters may ask more questions about a company's DEI programs and policies. Having a DEI officer who can clearly articulate and defend these programs can be a significant advantage.

Or - https://www.ijacademy.com/a-case-for-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-your-epli-toolkit#:~:text=Quick%20Overview,$129.00

Wokeness costs. No big deal. Just another drip drop in the ocean of political bullshit. There are lots of stupid costs in life. What point do you think you can win here either way? (Oh that’s right you don’t answer questions.) I think we should move on.

Unless you want to say something more about how DEI leads to a diverse workforce and more profits. Besides just citing someone else’s experience. Do you have any real experience with employment law claims and DEI? Do you know what the claims say and how to defend against them and how to win them?

Czeslaw Milosz wrote about in the Captive Mind, where he had to come up with delusions in order to soothe the inevitable cognitive dissonance required to live under Stalinism — NOS4A2

The woke don’t see the dissonance, the incoherence and the contradictions. I’ve pointed a few out to some
folks I assume are sympathetic to woke ideology (they won’t say it or make that clear), and have not once been engaged.

definitions are fraught — jorndoe

Perfect starting place for a woke position.

Unless we are defining maga, because they are the definition of jackass bastards. Or white men. Nothing fraught about it. Clear as day what is what and who is who there.

But woke Asian woman is by definition undefinable. Because of the woke part. And the Asian part. And the woman part. Need more context and usages to figure any of those words out. Especially when talking with someone who isn’t woke - abuse and oppression loom at every turn of phrase.

I am exactly responding to the claim that it was necessary for "good" insurance.

So, I'll ask again: are you maintaining that a given insurer, or a particular insurance package, mandated that you hire a DEI officer? — Mijin

Go read the posts about exactly what I am maintaining.

This is dumb.

Let me give you an analogy of why I can’t easily answer your question with the word “mandated” in it. Your question shows you aren’t seeing what I said. There is a legal requirement in many laws (HIPAA, GLBA, various state laws) that companies train their employees on data security. Training is the mandate. But exactly what the training is supposed say (what the actual content is) and how the company is supposed to document proof of training is not mandated. So companies have to figure out how to comply with these legal requirements. One way is to hire firms to provide and document training in ways the regulators have since accepted. Sooo, is hiring a firm to provide and document training mandated?? No, but aside from your average company becoming an expert in legally compliant training about data privacy to comply with the law, your average company has to hire a firm to do this training. It’s similar with employment law, and DEI. For insurers, companies must promise by contract that they will comply with all laws or their claims may be denied - how do companies show they are compliant with employment law today? One thing they can do is name a DEI officer to be responsible for compliance, to figure out how to train, etc. Looks really good on paper. Saves money on premium. And if there is ever an employment claim, the insurance company has less ammunition to deny paying the claim. There are other nuances and details.

So “mandated” which I didn’t say, has nothing to do with my point about how the real world of insuring a business works and how wokeism impacts it.

I have a feeling you still don’t understand and think you made some sort of point about the anti-woke and boogiemen.

———

Wokeism isn’t anything but a boogieman to help manufacture some sort of fascist takeover by white Christian supremecists, or whatever. Got it.

Enjoy the next three years hating Trump and MAGA as they furiously remake America. Hope we aren’t all in a concentration camp under the police state when they declare Trump emperor by then.

In the meantime, learn nothing about the anti-woke, what actually motivates them, what they actually mean, because you understand everything (including insurance underwriting and claim handling).

some gagging" == universities, government agencies including health agencies, the judiciary, the free press and millions of Americans' right to protest. — Mijin

No one has been “gagged”. Everyone is free to print whatever news is fit to print. Just because news media and professors are wimps and whiners doesn’t mean there is any actual political crisis going on.

No one has a right to be in the White House press room. Universities don’t have a right to government funding. Federal government agencies are under the control of the executive branch - that’s the system. And the courts are reviewing cases as always - a couple judges broke the law and were arrested. Judges don’t get to be politicians, that’s the point of a separate judiciary.

You are being a baby. Like the news media. And your average college professor.

As soon as Trump is out of office you won’t remember these made-up problems. I should say once the media loses interest in selling their anecdotes about the threats to democracy, you won’t be reminded of what they think is important anymore.

"gagging athena" == an anecdote from one guy — Mijin

I agree - it’s three (not one) small anecdotes from just one little person. But everyone has these anecdotes. Even the woke get screwed by woke sometimes. (See trans versus feminists). I’m trying to get away from talking anecdotes at all. What are woke principles and do they work? Is DEI tailored to only have to do with “hiring from a diverse pool” as you say? Is that the extent of what you think DEI does - diversify hiring?

The point of Athena’s anecdotes isn’t about how it impacted just Athena. She said the shelter preached about hating men. That’s a lot of people impacted by woke ideology. And if you don’t think hating men, particularly white men, is promoted by wokeism, you are aloof. And my point drawn from the Athena anecdote is different as well. My point is that the woke masters of diversity and inclusion are always happy to be prejudiced and sexist against men. My point is the wokeism in practice is contradictory and self defeating - as here, in order to signal one’s virtues of diversity, equity and inclusions, one spouts of how all men must be alike (not diverse), how all men need to be excluded (not from the shelter itself but from respect) - in order to fight inequitable treatment, they treat men inequitably. And they don’t (won’t) see how this will never work and is utter bullshit and only makes them feel like victims. So much harm no one wants to address.

[naming a DEI officer] was a requirement of a particular insurer — Mijin

I never said requirement or legal requirement to get insurance. You said that. I said we had to do it to get good insurance. We could have done other things but we had to demonstrate commitment to ramming woke bullshit down our employees throats - naming a DEI officer is one way to bolster that picture. Talk to some people who buy employment insurance. Despite what you think, DEI (so wokeism) is a real thing, costing (wasting) real dollars. And despite all of the divisiveness of our society, most people are kind, respectful, courteous, forgiving, team builders - all before their DEI and implicit bias tutorial.

——

If you look in my posts, I’ve said favorable things about woke and DEI. They do exist. I am trying my best to dialogue.

Do you really have no idea what all the fuss is about wokeness? You can’t give one inch to someone who thinks DEI has a dark side to it? You can’t just have a conversation?

I challenge you to spend a day outside your home in public places and not be confronted by the new political correctness. Maybe you don’t notice it because you are so deeply invested. But the American culture has changed significantly in the past 20 years - everyone is walking on eggshells in public. Even stand-up comedians (almost all liberals) complain about how shut down speech is by wokeness. There are millions of anecdotes showing concrete actual issues. We are so past the anecdotal evidence gathering phase that a guy like Trump got elected because he admitted there are issues with DEI.

The left should face this discussion head on to save the good parts of woke - the real enlightenment it seeks to promote. But they don’t seem to self-reflect. At all. They are just still shocked Trump won - how could people possibly elect such a scumbag? No idea.

retarded — jorndoe

Woke police 1980 - the word is “handicapped”, not retarded anymore.
Woke police 1990 - the word is “disabled”, not handicapped.
Woke police 2000s - the word is “physically challenged” Woke police 2010s - the word is “handi-capable” or “other-abled” (we can make up words now, like “woke”, even if they mean the opposite of what they say, like “she”).
Woke police 2020’s - you can be canceled, fired, shunned mocked, scorned for saying “retarded”.

You gotta know the rules and keep up with the right newspeak.

Not what I associate with "woke", — jorndoe

Are you willing to say what woke is? I haven’t seen anyone really try to say it. Just talk around it and talk about the unwoke. What do you see that should be associated with woke?

What I associate with woke is being told what to think and say.

the gagging of universities, government departments, journalists etc that right now is happening — Mijin

So some gagging is terrible, but gagging Athena wasn’t.

It’s all baby shit.

Anti-woke is often just as pathetic as woke. So what? I was trying to talk about woke.

You just don’t see it. Wokeness animated the election of Trump twice, but you don’t even see anything solid about it at all. It is so real a guy like Trump could win up against Ms. Kamala Wokeness. But to you, woke is a mass hallucination Athena and Trump alone can see.

If I were to point you to the data that more diverse workforces are associated with higher profitability, would it change your view on DEI? If not then there's your answer. — Mijin

So are corporate profits and capitalism good to you? Because that’s not woke - that’s exploitation and greed and builds oligarchies and permanent underclasses.

But assuming you could get your hands on some university study about how amazing DEI had been for corporate America, that doesn’t change what it is. It’s still incoherent (like you using profit to justify DEI is contradictory).

This is a much more careful and longer conversation. I don’t want to proceed unless you tell me what woke actually is to you - if you don’t think it’s a thing, a force, a set of policies, a philosophic worldview, then we will never build a conversation. We are just talking to ourselves here.

You say “anti-woke” is horseshit arguments to justify fascist behavior that is causing real harm.

I say you’ve skipped over the topic, namely: what is woke. If you don’t think woke even is anything, then no wonder you are so animated by Trump’s actions - they make no sense at all to you. It’s like watching a fireman aim his hose all over a building that isn’t burning, hearing the fireman yell he needs more water and watching him destroy the building for the sake of a fire that doesn’t exist. That’s what you see anti-woke doing.

from some googling around… some (minority) of insurers require a declaration of what the DEI policy is, but they can't ask you to hire someone. — Mijin

You might not know what you are talking about. Maybe there is no basis to accuse me of exaggerating. Google some more.. There are lots of ways to meet insurance underwriting requirements. There are lots of ways insurers can hike up your premium. There are lots of ways insurers can deny your claims? You really might want to talk to some business owners about what they actually do, what they have to do, what they do that is above and beyond the law and insurance requirements, and why they do it.

But who cares, woke isn’t real so anti-woke grievances can’t actually be about anything concrete.

You can’t see what woke is.

Years ago, I was horrified by the demands of men-hating, homosexual women, who had gotten control of a women's shelter. I was in training to be a volunteer, and as their hate of men went on and on, I felt like I had to defend men. I dared to say, it is not only men who can be abusive, but women can be the abusers too. That resulted in being told I was not welcome. These angry women also made it a rule that mothers must allow their children to sit on the laps of a gay person, and if they did not, this mother and child needing protection would be thrown out of the center. Anyone who opposed them in any way was the enemy, and anger was their driving force.
— Athena — Fire Ologist

That’s woke.

That’s impacting lives, unlike your boogieman summation of what woke is.

Years ago, I was horrified by the demands of men-hating, homosexual women, who had gotten control of a women's shelter. I was in training to be a volunteer, and as their hate of men went on and on, I felt like I had to defend men. I dared to say, it is not only men who can be abusive, but women can be the abusers too. That resulted in being told I was not welcome. These angry women also made it a rule that mothers must allow their children to sit on the laps of a gay person, and if they did not, this mother and child needing protection would be thrown out of the center. Anyone who opposed them in any way was the enemy, and anger was their driving force. — Athena

@Mijin there are millions of stories like that. They’ve been piling up since the 1980s. Maybe these aren’t a priority to you, and that’s fine, but this all sounds like fascism and intolerance to me. It all sounds like what maga thinks is “woke”. You could acknowledge there is something called “woke” that is real. You could even acknowledge the above example is what is wrong with wokeism. Wokeism wants to help women and homosexuals. That’s great. We all should all help each other. But the above example doesn’t help anyone. And it’s hurting our culture and society and promoting contradiction (to bring justice to women they admonish someone for stating a fact).

@Athena gave two more examples. She is one person. There are millions of real harms in the name of wokeness. My cousin, husband and father of two girls was fired for utter bullshit in the name of DEI.

I don’t even care about all of the anecdotes and who is a victim and who is an oppressor. They are just useful facts to support the fact that wokeness is a real thing and that it creates it own brand of harms. But forget the anecdotes - I only care about the principle and the philosophy.

What is woke? Is it good? Can good policy promote good woke principles?
From what I can tell, woke principles are in need of discussion (like, what does woke mean?). And from what I can tell, the enforcement of woke through DEI has been utterly wasteful if not harmful, with shallow few benefits to show for it.