woke

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: woke

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:03 pm The Big Guy gets 10% ... the tithing of the Evil-Doers.
I guess that's the most important point to come out of the laptop: was Hunter Biden peddling access to his father to the Ukranians and Chinese?

I'm surprised that the party-spirit in American is stronger, even, than American's love for their own country. I would think every American would want to know whether or not their country was in the hands of a man who might potentially be selling them out to foreign powers -- even if only to confirm that, after all, it was not true.

But apparently not: people there are more concerned with defending their party's position in power than of finding out whether or not their beloved country has been betrayed.

It's quite mystifying, until one considers how unbelievably powerful the education system and the Leftist press has become in dictating the American public imagination. Then you see that far too many Americans are sleep-walking their way through life, oblivious to anything but party spirit.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: woke

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

'White privilege' (as mentioned by our friendly resident wokie) is such a condescending, nasty, racist, deliberately divisive term that reeks of bitter sour grapes on one side, and virtue-signalling and hypocritical faux-guilt on the other. How condescending, to assume that anyone with extra melanin in their skin is automatically from a terrible disfunctional home and doomed to failure.
As a matter of fact Asians are the wealthiest group in the US (where the vile term originated (of course) ). The US is full of 'privileged' dirt poor homeless 'white' people.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: woke

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:23 am
iambiguous wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:48 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:48 am Thought-provoking is fairly rare, I think. It does happen. Sometimes someone will come at an issue from an angle I haven't encountered - thought-provoking meaning here something that provokes new thoughts in me directly due to its for-me-novel-nature. Usually what you get in most online forums is the rehashing of memes and viewpoints/attitudes that are 'out there' (in some way making things the way they are) and also find inside ourselves. I mean, most of us, regardless of our beliefs, if we've grown up in much of the West cannot have avoided taking in something like the Christian idea of sin. Even if we don't believe in God or are Buddhists, etc. So, we can in encountering an IC deal with those kinds of memes, that kind of attitude, in a kind of slow motion. What happens if I say _____________? Can such an attitude actually respond to point _______________?

Can I reduce the influence in myself of meme 234 by a slow motion encounter with an advocate?
What is the psychology of an advocate of viewpoint 35B?

I envy you in a way if you actually simply find it entertaining. I mean, wow. Not being annoyed or triggered at least part of the time by people whose idea - I am assuming in this case - bother you and have a great deal of power 'out there' and possibly 'in there' also (for you).
On the other hand I think it's missing out on the possibilities of what one can gain from dealing with someone (who, yes, is not fully capable of responding to what people actually say and who, likely without realizing it, makes assumptions and leaps and leaves glaring lacunae in 'responses') here in old PN.

For entertainment alone, well, perhaps playing an online chess computer or even earning some money while being entertained in an online poker site. But, to each his own.

Just adding a third option for consideration.

Can one reduce, if only locally, the effects of viewpoint 35B or meme 234, and also what is really going on in the carriers of these things? The latter not scientific, but still I think we can learn a lot about at least how and why individuals align with, take on, get used by, seek to be contagious with their now favorite ideas. And what allows them to hold them in place when faced with opposition of various kinds.

But if you really want thought provoking, you're probably not in the right place. At least percentage wise.

There are a couple of ways of taking someone seriously. I don't take IC seriously in at least one of the main ways one does this. But attitude/memes riding him, well...that's having real affects out there though their nearly all gone, in here.

I use ridden (riding) in the anthropological sense....

We'll need a context of course. 8)
Always a pleasant surprise to get a respectful, well thought-out response when one makes a respectful, well thought-out response to someone's post.
Just recently on another thread, when I provided him with a thought-out response, he abandoned the exchange, claiming that it was a "waste of time" to continue the discussion.

I can't recall the thread but if it clicks for someone here please bring it to our attenmtion.

I suspect Iwannaplato is karpel tunnel/moreno from ILP. And, if so, I would infuriate the hell out of him there too.

Anyway, if he chooses to, he can note a particular moral issue given a particular context and we can discuss our own respective takes on "woke".

And I can promise him that if he chooses to create an exchange that aims to be both intelligent and civil, I won't be the one to shift gears to "huffing and puffing".
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: woke

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 9:39 pm Just recently on another thread, when I provided him with a thought-out response, he abandoned the exchange, claiming that it was a "waste of time" to continue the discussion.
Yes, there was thought in that post. However, as one example, you decided not to address at all my pointing out that you attributed assertions to me I had not made. And while the post had thought, it wasn't directing responses to what I wrote. A common practice of yours is to talk about what a post is not doing that you would like it to do. Even if it is on point in response to you or the thread or someone else. That's wasting my time as far as I am concerned. Throwing thoughts at me does not a response make. Making up things I haven't said and responding to those, does not a response make. If you weren't interested in IC and the ideas you raised in that post and what was happening there, then don't bring it up. But don't pretend my post should have presented a context related to something else. You brought up something. I responded to that.
Your positions on your being fractured and conflicting views of morality and a number of other issues are well thought out. But that doesn't mean that repeating them is a response to my or other people's posts. It is some kind of reaction, but that's about it. Thus time wasting.
I suspect Iwannaplato is karpel tunnel/moreno from ILP. And, if so, I would infuriate the hell out of him there too.
Not sure what you're on about here, but I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you have infuriated a number of people.
Anyway, if he chooses to, he can note a particular moral issue given a particular context and we can discuss our own respective takes on "woke".
I responded to a post, which I quoted, about IC. You did not respond to the points I raised, which I believe was part of the problem on other threads with your responses: that you don't respond to points raised. There have been other issues.

It's really simple. You ask a question. I make a polite respectful response. You respond as if it was a poor response to the OP or something. I point this out in a playful way and you huff and puff - this seems to be a sin in your book so, I'll frame it as that.
And I can promise him that if he chooses to create an exchange that aims to be both intelligent and civil, I won't be the one to shift gears to "huffing and puffing".
Perhaps you won't do that next time. But how odd that you couldn't manage this time to respond to my post and when this is pointed out, still can't manage. It's OK. You're pretty consistant. I'm an adult.

Likely down the road I'll respond again to something your write. After a little time away. Starting from noll again. Because if I move away for a while, it's not irritating. Maybe that time you'll respond in a new way.

Or not. Or I won't. Time will tell.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:58 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 6:21 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:15 am
Not necessarily. You could be something like an old-style Marxist, or you could just be unaware of the connection between Leftism and wokism. I can't say what you are. You'd have to tell us.

But if you were a wokie, you would, for sure, be on the Left.
Does everyone have to fit into one of your stupid boxes?
Hey, Left is Left. It's not my choice; it's theirs.
And, 'they' have OBVIOUSLY CHOSEN the Right, Good, and Proper "side".

It is because of the 'wokie', the 'religious', and the 'blind', like "yourself" "immanuel can", who, for sure, are on the 'right' WHY the 'world' is in such the MESS that 'it' IS, in the days when this is being written.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:58 pm There are no classical-liberal Wokies, because classical liberals believe in freedom of speech and thought,
So, 'you' BELIEVE people have the Right to think of to speak of HATING and KILLING ALL of those Truly INSANE people who BELIEVE God is a male gendered "he", just like 'you', "iimmanuel can", right?

These people also have the Right to keep speaking like this and THREATENING "others" with ETERNAL DAMNATION if they also do NOT start thinking and speaking like this as well, correct?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 2:58 pm and they believe in collectivist identity and politically correct ideology. That's not my doing. It's the Wokies.
LOL
LOL
LOL

This is EXACTLY what 'you' do "immanuel can". Even throughout just THIS THREAD 'you' have SHOWN plenty of examples of doing this EXACT SAME thing. In fact even in this actual very last sentence here of yours, which I am now responding to, 'you' did this EXACT SAME thing. That is; 'you' BELIEVE in the collectivist identity of 'left' and 'wokies', and 'you' SQUEEZE 'those' who 'you' deem to be of some collectivist identity, into that identity, as can be CLEARLY SEEN with 'your' "Wokies" word here.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 11:15 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Dec 04, 2022 1:02 am
Not at all. You can be an individual and vote.

But vote as an individual, for the candidates and parties that actually have the policies you regard as best. Vote for those that maximize opportunity and don't overreach. Vote for those with sane economic policies, good character, and a track record of success. Don't vote for a candidate just because he's red or blue.
I wish two things: one, that there *were* candidates I agreed with more readily.
Now, THAT, I agree with totally.

I find it quite astonishing that we have had, in the last few years, candidates of such low, low quality, either in your country or mine, or in other countries in Europe. In many cases, it's almost like we couldn't find anybody for the job, and just pressed into service anybody who would say, "Okay," rather than seeking out the best and most competent public servants.
In the days when this was being written, finding ANY adult human being who was worthy of being a so-called "leader" was just about an IMPOSSIBILITY. ALL of 'you' had been so HARMED and DAMAGED from your ABUSIVE childhoods that 'you' ALL had just ended up to GREEDY and to SELFISH for ANY one's well being.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm We have a distinct lack of statesmen, and an abundance of politicians.
Well "politicians" are EXACTLY what 'you', adult human beings, VOTE FOR, WANT, and PUT IN.

And, what is a so-called "statesmen", exactly, other than just another skilled or respected "politician"? of the 'male gender', I will add.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm That is to say, we have many who make decisions with an obsessive, myopic view to keeping themselves or their political party in power, and almost none who (regardless of their party) keep the interests of their countries in the forefront of their decision-making, and will make the sorts of tough, non-partisan choices that serve the true public interest.
1. Well that is just the RESULT of being brought up in a Truly GREEDY and SELFISH environment, EXACTLY like the one 'you', adult human beings, have created and still are creating in the days when this is being written.

2. Keep one's, laughable, OWN country in the forefront is WHY the 'world' is in such the MESS that 'it' OBVIOUSLY is in, in the days when this is being written.

'you', adult human beings, REALLY could NOT see that it was what 'you' WANTED and DESIRED WHY the YOUR 'world' was such a DISASTER. It is, SOLELY, BECAUSE of 'you', adult human beings, individually AND collectively. But, because 'you' have ALL been TOO ABUSED NONE of 'you' have LEARNED HOW to TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm And maybe that exposes a limitation of open democracy: namely, that if the greater mass of the electorate becomes undiscriminating about to whom they will assent, about the people they permit to hold office, then the majority -- being willing to accept a very low standard, it seems -- can pull down the available pool of candidates to the lowest level, giving nobody else any decent choice.
Like, for example, when the 'male God created the whole Universe' BELIEVING sect of people permit "others" with this EXACT SAME MOST ABSURD BELIEF to 'hold office', and be willing to accept this MOST LOWEST OF STANDARD, then there is NO wonder the 'world' FAILED SO MUCH as 'it' OBVIOUSLY HAS and HAD.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm But what's the alternative?
Absolute Honesty, Openness, and serious Want to CHANGE, (for the betterment of EVERY one, as One), that is WHAT the 'alternative' IS.

Elitism? Limiting the voter lists? A more vigorous republic? A renewal of public standards? It's a quandary, to be sure.
[/quote]

LOL There is NO so-called 'quandary' AT ALL.

'you', adult human beings, were STILL just TO BLIND, TO CLOSED, and lacked True RESPONSIBILITY to FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL SOLUTION IS, EXACTLY, back in the days when this was being written.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Astro Cat wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm But what's the alternative? Elitism? Limiting the voter lists? A more vigorous republic? A renewal of public standards? It's a quandary, to be sure.
I have no idea either.
As I JUST WROTE, they were TO BLIND and TO CLOSED to FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL SOLUTION IS, EXACTLY.
Astro Cat wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:25 pm There are many times where I feel like things are already beyond redemption, or at least in a generational sense (that it will take a new generation that is more curious, cares more, is more informed, thinks more critically, etc.)
And here we have ANOTHER example of being SO CLOSE, but YET, and sadly for them, still being SO FAR.

See, when that generational CHANGE HAPPENS, it ONLY takes one generation for the CHANGE to occur, and sadly for ALL the previous generations, they missed out on the Truly SATISFYING REWARDS. So, it was with that FIRST Truly RESPONSIBLE generation, who were Truly Honest, Truly OPENLY CURIOUS, and Truly WANTING to CHANGE, for the betterment of "others" and ALL, who gained the MOST SATISFACTION, and the BIGGEST REWARDS as well. For EVERY generation afterwards had 'that generation' to THANK for making the CHANGE HAPPEN.
Astro Cat wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:25 pm But I don't know how to even get that done since the quandary is the existing leaders have to want that, and they apparently don't.
And here is ANOTHER PRIME EXAMPLE of those adult human beings having absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, they were, LAUGHINGLY, ACTUALLY CONTINUALLY WAITING for "others" to do things FOR 'them'.

Those adults were SO LAZY and SO USELESS, back in those days, that they ACTUALLY BELIEVED that, " IF we vote the 'right' person in, then 'they' WILL DO 'things' FOR 'us' ".

"astro cat" how about INSTEAD of WAITING for "others" to HAVE TO WANT THAT, that 'you', "yourself", WANT THAT?

Or, is that just TOO MUCH to ask OF 'you'?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:11 pm But what's the alternative? Elitism? Limiting the voter lists? A more vigorous republic? A renewal of public standards? It's a quandary, to be sure.
I have no idea either. There are many times where I feel like things are already beyond redemption, or at least in a generational sense (that it will take a new generation that is more curious, cares more, is more informed, thinks more critically, etc.) But I don't know how to even get that done since the quandary is the existing leaders have to want that, and they apparently don't.
Right. They seem more and more determined to secure their own future positions, regardless of what it does to the country, and even regardless of whatever the public might actually want.
As can be CLEARLY SEEN here 'they' had ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL.

ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing WAS THE RESPONSIBILITY of someone ELSE.

Thus, the reason WHY CHANGE, for betterment, took SO LONG TO HAPPEN and OCCUR.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm It's a strange paradox: the incompetents at the top are, without hesitation, elitist.
Well 'you' at the 'bottom' so-called and alleged "non elitists" VOTED 'them' IN.

How much MORE STUPID could 'you' BE?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm They practice their belief that the right goal -- for them -- is the securing of their own futures and that of their parties, no matter what that entails for the democratic process.
And, ONCE AGAIN, well 'you' VOTED 'them' IN.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm And they don't trust a free vote to produce a good outcome. They believe that the public has to be "managed" so as to "do the right thing." The irony is that they present as "democratic" that which is really paternalistic, patronizing and manipulative, on their part; and the public seems to be buying it.
Well 'you' were one of the ones that VOTED 'them' IN.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is; IF there is ANY FAULT, then it is ALWAYS BECAUSE of the "other".
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm And the democratic mechanisms are vulnerable to that sort of manipulation, because they require the public belief that votes are always fair and open. So the elitists can insist that the cardinal sin is the doubting of any vote that appears to be "democratic," whether it was or not. And they can even keep reassuring the public that some part of its own number are simply unworthy of being included in any genuine "democratic" reckoning. Meanwhile, they can keep extending the franchise to the groups that they find the most manipulable -- especially to constituencies of those who depend on government largesse or fiat for their own survival, or who have naive expectations of government generosity (the resentful, those in debt, the very young, those dependent on government programs, non-citizens, criminals, and so forth). This keeps the process looking ever more "democratic," but creates a majority that is more and more manipulable to the elitists.

What's particularly troubling is that governments -- under all parties -- seemed to have stopped seeing monolythic business interests as suspicious or contrary to the public interest, and have instead sought ways to ally themselves with those interests against the people. Out of that Faustian bargain, the politicians get power, and the business interests get money, and the mass media get a captive audience -- all three get what they most desire: the ability to more freely exploit the average citizen in the particular way each prizes most. So they've stopped fighting with each other, stopped criticizing and undermining each other, and have begun to coordinate their efforts. That's very ominous.

The only loser in the bargain is the average citizen.
ALL of this is CAUSED and CREATED by 'you', adult human beings. So, REALLY, the ONLY 'loser' here ARE CHILDREN.

The ONLY ones who ARE Truly being HARMED and DAMAGED, and thus Truly SUFFERING ARE CHILDREN.

But, then again, 'you', adult human beings, do NOT CARE about this BECAUSE 'you' are ALL TO BUSY doing what it takes to GET what it is that 'you' ALL WANT and DESIRE, which is just MORE MONEY.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm
Astro Cat wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 3:46 pm Right. They seem more and more determined to secure their own future positions, regardless of what it does to the country, and even regardless of whatever the public might actually want.

It's a strange paradox: the incompetents at the top are, without hesitation, elitist. They practice their belief that the right goal -- for them -- is the securing of their own futures and that of their parties, no matter what that entails for the democratic process. And they don't trust a free vote to produce a good outcome. They believe that the public has to be "managed" so as to "do the right thing." The irony is that they present as "democratic" that which is really paternalistic, patronizing and manipulative, on their part; and the public seems to be buying it.

And the democratic mechanisms are vulnerable to that sort of manipulation, because they require the public belief that votes are always fair and open. So the elitists can insist that the cardinal sin is the doubting of any vote that appears to be "democratic," whether it was or not. And they can even keep reassuring the public that some part of its own number are simply unworthy of being included in any genuine "democratic" reckoning. Meanwhile, they can keep extending the franchise to the groups that they find the most manipulable -- especially to constituencies of those who depend on government largesse or fiat for their own survival, or who have naive expectations of government generosity (the resentful, those in debt, the very young, those dependent on government programs, non-citizens, criminals, and so forth). This keeps the process looking ever more "democratic," but creates a majority that is more and more manipulable to the elitists.

What's particularly troubling is that governments -- under all parties -- seemed to have stopped seeing monolythic business interests as suspicious or contrary to the public interest, and have instead sought ways to ally themselves with those interests against the people. Out of that Faustian bargain, the politicians get power, and the business interests get money, and the mass media get a captive audience -- all three get what they most desire: the ability to more freely exploit the average citizen in the particular way each prizes most. So they've stopped fighting with each other, stopped criticizing and undermining each other, and have begun to coordinate their efforts. That's very ominous.

The only loser in the bargain is the average citizen.
I have had nearly conspirational thoughts at times (just silly musings) when I see things like insulin costing four times what other countries pay for it in the US (or really, our entire for-profit healthcare system in general). It seems like the political leaders in the US are less caretakers for their flock and more selling the world's fattest pigs to the highest bidder.
Yes. And I don't think it's "conspiratorial thinking" that's telling you that. I think it's something as simple as "recognition of the obvious."

What's occurred to our "public servants" in the last few years has been something that probably should have been obvious to them long ago:
And, what has occurred to those adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, has been something that SHOULD HAVE and WOULD HAVE been OBVIOUS to them long ago, AS WELL.

But just like they EXPECTED "others" to SEE, the blatantly OBVIOUS, they were ALSO NOT SEEING the blatantly OBVIOUS, EITHER.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm that in fighting against big business and big media, in the name of the public interest, they were undercutting the most efficient conditions of their own advancement.
While LOOKING AT and JUDGING "others", they were DOING what was ACTUALLY CAUSING the PREVENTION and STOPPING of their advancement.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm To illustrate: government used to consider as one of its most important roles to be vigilant against monopolies, and bust them when they appeared. They created a whole caste of public officials to monitor, prosecute and eliminate things like the forming of trusts or the concentration of too much power in a single business entity. They fought to maintain competition.
Besides the fact that it is said and claimed that the 'catholic church' is the richest monetary wealthy business in the world, and so would make it one of the biggest monopolies in the world, if not the biggest, and which is based SOLELY UPON MISINTERPRETATIONS and/or LIES, but anyway, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of LOOKING AT and JUDGING "others" INSTEAD of LOOKING AT and CHANGING one's OWN very OBVIOUS Wrong thinking, behaviors, and ways.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm But somewhere along the line, they realized that they could get much farther much faster by not doing this. For while a monopoly in a given area might not be in the public interest, or in the interest of competition of consumer choice, it was much easier to collude with big business if big business was concentrated under a single head -- essentially, a monopoly.
WHY is 'this' ALL ABOUT MONEY, to 'you', "immanuel can"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm So they quietly allowed particular businesses like, say, Blackrock, to grow bigger and bigger, so long as they continued to support their political interests.
While 'churches' do NOT even have to pay tax, as long as one "side" of politics is VOTED FOR.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm It's so much easier to negotiate with one corporation than three or ten. Meanwhile, the big corporations sensed the opportunity; fund the politicians, get them elected and secured, and the constraints on business would quietly reduce until they became merely symbolic, or disappeared altogether.
'you' speak of these things that have been going on for hundreds of years, if not for thousands of years, ALREADY, as though they are just a relatively new occurrence "immanuel can".
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm So there was probably never a "conspiracy." There was probably no secret meeting in which the heads of big business sat down with the politicians and talked this all out surreptitiously. (I suppose there might have been, but I don't think it was at all necessary.) More likely, the politicians and the businessmen just came to realize, about the same time, that they could help one another "manage" the public. And both could get the thing they most wanted, so long as they didn't fight over the less-important differences. Big business, always attuned to getting more money, could happily cede poliitical power to the politicians, and even help secure them, so long as the politicians, always attuned to securing power, didn't fight them over business's plans to bilk the public.
WHO of 'you', adult human beings, is NOT trying to GET MORE MONEY?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm It has the sort of horrific, simple logic of a bad idea that has its own legs to walk on. I'll bet they never even had to discuss it. It was always obvious; the miracle is that they didn't realize it sooner.
OF COURSE WANTING MORE MONEY is a BAD IDEA. Sadly though, 'you', adult human beings, STILL have NOT YET RECOGNIZED this OBVIOUS Fact.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:34 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:19 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 4:24 pm
So there was probably never a "conspiracy." There was probably no secret meeting in which the heads of big business sat down with the politicians and talked this all out surreptitiously. (I suppose there might have been, but I don't think it was at all necessary.) More likely, the politicians and the businessmen just came to realize, about the same time, that they could help one another "manage" the public.
Yes, I hear Twitter employees are claiming government coercion for their Evil-Doing, but they were ever so eager to comply.
They certainly were. And while either party, or plausibly both, might have had opportunity to petition Twitter to suppress information, I see that Musk has also published the statistics on their donations to political parties, which included only 2.7% to the Republicans, and 97.3% to the Democrats. :shock:
Will 'you' express 'shock' at the percentage of money just GIVEN TO the OTHER political party from other companies?

Or, GIVING money to that OTHER political party a GOOD and Right thing, to 'you'?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 6:34 pm To borrow a trope from the Left, opportunity might have theoretically been equal to both parties: but outcomes, well, that's likely to have been quite a different matter.
"immanuel can" could 'you' come across MORE ONE SIDED if 'you' even tried to?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: woke

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:24 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:03 pm The Big Guy gets 10% ... the tithing of the Evil-Doers.
I guess that's the most important point to come out of the laptop: was Hunter Biden peddling access to his father to the Ukranians and Chinese?

I'm surprised that the party-spirit in American is stronger, even, than American's love for their own country. I would think every American would want to know whether or not their country was in the hands of a man who might potentially be selling them out to foreign powers -- even if only to confirm that, after all, it was not true.

But apparently not: people there are more concerned with defending their party's position in power than of finding out whether or not their beloved country has been betrayed.

It's quite mystifying, until one considers how unbelievably powerful the education system and the Leftist press has become in dictating the American public imagination. Then you see that far too many Americans are sleep-walking their way through life, oblivious to anything but party spirit.
It looks like 'you' have just here answered my last question posed to 'you', "immanuel can".
tillingborn
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: woke

Post by tillingborn »

Some of you will appreciate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U26-D-7Ey2w
Gary Childress
Posts: 7966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: Retirement Home for foolosophers

Re: woke

Post by Gary Childress »

tillingborn wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:55 pm Some of you will appreciate this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U26-D-7Ey2w
I believe it. The "news" page on my Internet browser is typically about 50% clickbait and 40% ads.

It's the same principle that catapulted Howard Stern into fame.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: woke

Post by Walker »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:10 pm Why are you so obsessed wth seeing Hunter Biden's dick picks? That's what was purged from Twitter, a bunch of revenge porn.
- Such a strange little puppy you are. Sort of like a little chihuahua. Aye chihuahua! :lol:

- Those little mutts have nasty little teeth but it looks bad if you kick one out of your way, plus they might get a tooth into the weave of your pants around the ankle zone.

- No, you cannot shake my right hand, now that I’ve learned what chihuahuas really think about that human custom.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: woke

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 8:24 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:03 pm The Big Guy gets 10% ... the tithing of the Evil-Doers.
I guess that's the most important point to come out of the laptop: was Hunter Biden peddling access to his father to the Ukranians and Chinese?
I think support of the corruption by the minions who vote for The Left clarifies corrupt qualities of the left that persist in form from each generation to the next.

Everyone knows about the Corrupt Brandon Family Crime Ring, knows that Hunter was just the bag man, and knows that government institutions are protecting the corruption. Even the Leftist minions know this, and they applaud the methods while blaming the results on anyone they demonize, which is their method of making others small in order to be large themselves, in self-concept.

But deep down they know the evil that they do with any means necessary.

I
Post Reply