woke

[commonsense]

Why is 'cultural appropriation' (who comes up with these shit terms?) evil and despicable,

Yes, cultural appropriation is such a bad thing, yet one culture has adopted elements of another forever. But I ask where did rock’n roll come from before white suburbanites began to sing You Ain’t Nothin’ but a Hound Dog?

[commonsense]

disregard this post

[Immanuel Can]

Why is 'cultural appropriation' (who comes up with these shit terms?) evil and despicable,

Yes, cultural appropriation is such a bad thing, yet one culture has adopted elements of another forever. But I ask where did rock’n roll come from before white suburbanites began to sing You Ain’t Nothin’ but a Hound Dog?

Good point.

Is eating somebody else's food, or listening to their music, or wearing their fashions, or even adopting their dialect (as in "rap") an insult or the highest form of flattery? Why should we always construe it as an insult?

I thought the same Wokies claim to love "diversity" and "inclusion"? But if you "include" the "diversity" of other cultures, you're "appropriating"? What sense does that make?

Answer: none at all. And that's why The Woking Dead hate reason, logic and truth. They don't ever make sense, aren't consistent, and often simultaneously believe (to quote Alice's White Queen) "six impossible things before breakfast."

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why is 'cultural appropriation' (who comes up with these shit terms?) evil and despicable,

Yes, cultural appropriation is such a bad thing, yet one culture has adopted elements of another forever. But I ask where did rock’n roll come from before white suburbanites began to sing You Ain’t Nothin’ but a Hound Dog?

Good point.

Is eating somebody else's food, or listening to their music, or wearing their fashions, or even adopting their dialect (as in "rap") an insult or the highest form of flattery? Why should we always construe it as an insult?

I thought the same Wokies claim to love "diversity" and "inclusion"? But if you "include" the "diversity" of other cultures, you're "appropriating"? What sense does that make?

Answer: none at all. And that's why The Woking Dead hate reason, logic and truth. They don't ever make sense, aren't consistent, and often simultaneously believe (to quote Alice's White Queen) "six impossible things before breakfast."

Comments like this make it seem as if you 'get' it, but then you always go and spoil it by moronically referring to it as 'the left'. You might as well say that everyone who votes centre-right is a member of the KKK. Or that everyone who votes centre-left is a vegan hippy. Fucking infuriating. Do you think that just because someone is left leaning then they automatically follow stupid internet fashion fads eg obsessing over their latest pet faux-cause-of-the-month and buzz-terms?
How exactly are you defining 'the left' anyway? Do you really describe yourself as 'right wing'? Is 'right wing' how you like to see yourself? You can't have a 'left' without a 'right'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.

So you are a mind reader as well What a dickhead.

[Immanuel Can]

Comments like this make it seem as if you 'get' it, but then you always go and spoil it by moronically referring to it as 'the left'.

And yet, it invariably IS the Left.

If you don't know that, I can't imagine why you don't.

You might as well say that everyone who votes centre-right is a member of the KKK.

No, the original KKK, the Segregationists, and even the slave owners were all Democrats. Don't trust me on that: go and check. I'm right about that. They were never "center-right" or even "right" at all.

Do you think that just because someone is left leaning then they automatically follow stupid internet fashion fads eg obsessing over their latest pet faux-cause-of-the-month and buzz-terms?

No. I think a lot of Leftists, like plausibly yourself, are entirely unaware of their own ideological roots, and are oblivious to, or are even annoyed by, the excesses of the Radical Left. But what they fail to grasp is that collectivism always slides that way on the slope. Once you decide that your identity depends on the collective, you have an incentive for taking your morals, your values, your beliefs, your identity and your volition from the collective you think produces you.

How exactly are you defining 'the left' anyway?

Socialists, Neo-Marxists, Communists, Fascists, Globalists, and other forms of collectivists are all on the Left. We would have to put Libertarians, Anarchists, Traditionalists, and other such individualistic types on the Right. In the middle are classical liberals and centrist conservatives.

The distinctive between them is how one's identity is decided. For the Left, you are primarily an exemplar of a social group, and your identity is a "construct" produced socially, by them. You are not an individual, to them, and they actually think nobody can be one, and that nobody's rights derive from any intrinsic value human beings have, but have to be bestowed by the beneficence of their social group or government. That's how they process things.

I doubt you do. You don't speak like you see yourself as a drone of some "class structure."

Do you really describe yourself as 'right wing'?

No, of course not. Why would I?

I'm a centrist, probably over toward the conservative side, but definitely not a radical Libertarian or anything on the far Right.

[Immanuel Can]

Whaaat? Atheists pretend they don’t believe God exists? Is that what you’re saying?

Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.

So you are a mind reader as well.

When somebody pretends they are certain, but also knows they are not, they are lying. That's definitional, and requires no mind-reading.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No, the original KKK, the Segregationists, and even the slave owners were all Democrats. Don't trust me on that: go and check. I'm right about that. They were never "center-right" or even "right" at all.

That old cliche. Just proves what bullshit your whole 'left' 'right' crap is then. It means nothing for the vast majority of voters.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Not quite.

What an Atheist is, is somebody who wants to disbelieve in God. Often desperately.

But their position is non-evidentiary and personal. It's non-evidentiary, because they can't even possibly manufacture the requisite evidence to prove God does not exist. It's private, because in the absence of such evidence, their belief is only their own. But they want their disbelief to have public implications: they want to say, "Your belief in God is a delusion," and they want you to feel that you have to agree with them...without sufficient evidence.

So what they do all know is this: that they have no sufficient reasons for declaring that God does not exist. And they all suspect, even when they will not admit it, that He does. So they are arguing in bad faith...they are pretending to a certainty they don't have (because they know they have insufficient evidence), and to a scope of implication that they cannot justify (i.e. that you should also disbelieve).

So they know they're charlatans. And yes, they are pretending. But not quite the way you assume.

So you are a mind reader as well.

When somebody pretends they are certain, but also knows they are not, they are lying. That's definitional, and requires no mind-reading.

There's nothing to 'lie' about. Why would anyone bother? I couldn't give a flying rat's arse what juvenile crap you've been conditioned to 'believe' as long as it doesn't interfere with others. I could say the same thing about you. That you only 'pretend' to believe. 'Believe' what? I have no idea, since I can't read your mind and you haven't defined it--EVER.

[Immanuel Can]

No, the original KKK, the Segregationists, and even the slave owners were all Democrats. Don't trust me on that: go and check. I'm right about that. They were never "center-right" or even "right" at all.

That old cliche.

No, historical fact. Go and look it up. It's true.

[Immanuel Can]

I couldn't give a flying rat's arse what juvenile crap you've been conditioned to 'believe' as long as it doesn't interfere with others.

Wow, you spend a lot of energy inveighing against people you "couldn't give a FRA about."

No, the truth seems to be that you hate them viscerally. That much is quite evident from your language use. And you find them immensely threatening to your own psychological stability and well-being, for some reason. So the posture of not-caring is quite unconvincing, I have to say.

As for me, I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a Christian. So you should -- or could -- be able to understand what I believe.

[promethean75]

this is a pseudo-problem tho. the fact of the agnostic's uncertainty regarding the existence of a 'god' is a bit of confusion generated from a systematic misuse of language or from the invention of nonsensical, super empirical terms. and for every century that passed, metaphysical language wuz further and further enriched, building equity, to the point that talk of 'god' became a piece of philosophical furniture... when in fact this talk makes no more sense now than it did when the ancient Greeks were talking about it thousands of years ago. but becuz it's been talked about for so long, people believe there must be some substance to it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No, the original KKK, the Segregationists, and even the slave owners were all Democrats. Don't trust me on that: go and check. I'm right about that. They were never "center-right" or even "right" at all.

That old cliche.

No, historical fact. Go and look it up. It's true.

So what? And yeah, I've read this. Do you have a point? You must do, because you are acting as if you have won a prize of something Sooo, according to you, the KKK are 'left wing liberals', and as all so-called 'left wingers' are 'wokies' (according to you), then the KKK are wokies. Interesting.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I couldn't give a flying rat's arse what juvenile crap you've been conditioned to 'believe' as long as it doesn't interfere with others.

Wow, you spend a lot of energy inveighing against people you "couldn't give a FRA about."

No, the truth seems to be that you hate them viscerally. That much is quite evident from your language use. And you find them immensely threatening to your own psychological stability and well-being, for some reason. So the posture of not-caring is quite unconvincing, I have to say.

As for me, I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a Christian. So you should -- or could -- be able to understand what I believe.

You really are a slimy little disingenuous creep. As I said, I couldn't give a rat's arse what you believe as long as you don't try to interfere with others or tell them how to live. And I genuinly do NOT know what you believe. You have never defined it. I know this much though, whatever you are, a christian ain't it.

[commonsense]

You might as well say that everyone who votes centre-right is a member of the KKK.

No, the original KKK, the Segregationists, and even the slave owners were all Democrats. Don't trust me on that: go and check. I'm right about that. They were never "center-right" or even "right" at all.

IC, your style of argumentation, until now, has always impressed me favorably. But I bristle at the kind of argument that conflates history and the present.

Are you saying that the Klan is not part of the radical right?

Do you think that modern-day Democrats support the KKK or the Segregationists? Do you think that current Democrats own slaves?

Do you think that your remarks are relevant today?