Wokeism of the day *Revised Mod Note in OP and threadbanned users*

stefanovich

meathstevie wrote: »

It’s a sad state of affairs if folks are that far up their own backside that they value their opinion over biological fact.

Sure maybe we should wokenly cancel nature as well. Humans are a mammal and that comes with a few undeniable facts; one of them is that the female of the species has mammary glands that produce milk to feed the offspring.

When are they going to bring this to the rest of the animal population?
I probably shouldn’t give them ideas...

Biafranlivemat

https://twitter.com/i/status/1357354769078235138

Here is something for the "woke"
Or are ye just a "dumb Goy"

statesaver

https://twitter.com/FirstThemNEWS/status/1360693006513315842

Biafranlivemat

statesaver wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FirstThemNEWS/status/1360693006513315842

It actually makes sense, to call a Asian man a "white supremacist"
Unofficial and official, Asians have been considered "white" in the US for years.

stefanovich

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

https://twitter.com/i/status/1357354769078235138

Here is something for the "woke"
Or are ye just a "dumb Goy"

Looks like comedy to me but I didn’t watch it all. They don’t appear very woke to me in Israel.

stefanovich

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

It actually makes sense, to call a Asian man a "white supremacist"
Unofficial and official, Asians have been considered "white" in the US for years.

Didn’t a bunch a Asian students take legal action against Harvard because they were quota’d out of the admissions process?

Asians numbers were limited artificially because they did too well as a race.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Didn’t a bunch a Asian students take legal action against Harvard because they were quota’d out of the admissions process?

Asians numbers were limited artificially because they did too well as a race.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-the-asian-american-students-lost-their-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Sadly they lost.

Edit: read the judgement, holy moly.
The judge said that because Asians are discriminated against due to their race that proves they weren’t in this case because otherwise the university would have given them a leg up!
So basically the judge ruled that Harvard are not racist because they are woke. What a judge!

Biafranlivemat

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-the-asian-american-students-lost-their-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Sadly they lost.

The racism experienced by Asians is very high in the US.

stefanovich

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

The racism experienced by Asians is very high in the US.

According to the left:

Asians and whites are valid targets of racism in America.
Jews and whites are valid targets of racism in Europe.

Biafranlivemat

stefanovich wrote: »

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2019/10/01/why-the-asian-american-students-lost-their-case-against-harvard-but-should-have-won/

Sadly they lost.

Edit: read the judgement, holy moly.
The judge said that because Asians are discriminated against due to their race that proves they weren’t in this case because otherwise the university would have given them a leg up!
So basically the judge ruled that Harvard are not racist because they are woke. What a judge!

I have worked with two Harvard Grads (both White) not the nicest or best people in the world.
A bit of a "Master Race Complex" just because the went to Harvard.

stefanovich

Biafranlivemat wrote: »

I have worked with two Harvard Grads (both White) not the nicest or best people in the world.
A bit of a "Master Race Complex" just because the went to Harvard.

Ah yes, similar to Oxford. They usually go on to be powerful people.

Omackeral

statesaver wrote: »

https://twitter.com/FirstThemNEWS/status/1360693006513315842

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

Just use a word in the dictionary rather than slang.

Asian.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Mad that his surname translates as yellow in Irish. Side note, is it considered racist or inappropriate to refer to Asian people as yellow? I’ve heard it but not sure. I know some Hispanic/latin people call themselves brown and obviously white and black is common parlance. Unsure on this.

Funny though how “coloured” is offensive but “people of colour” is not.

I suppose it’s the historical use of the word coloured.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Just use a word in the dictionary rather than slang.

Asian.

Yellow is in the dictionary I’d have thought? I do use Asian. I was asking a question. I’ll look it up myself so.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

Yellow is in the dictionary I’d have thought? I do use Asian. I was asking a question. I’ll look it up myself so.

Not with that meaning.

Omackeral

Just looked it up. Murky enough history to the term “yellow” but originally its linked to Homo Asiaticus and has translations to pale/sallow/yellow. It became a slur but some quarters within the East Asian-American quarters want to reclaim it in ways that others have done for “brown” and even “queer”. Probably wise to leave it off myself.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Not with that meaning.

It is actually. Listed as sometimes offensive according Merriam-Webster. So that answers my question. Thanks for all your brilliant help.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

It is actually. Listed as offensive. So that answers my question. Thanks for all your brilliant help.

Also marked as slang.

I suppose the litmus test is whether it is generally considered offensive.

It is.

Omackeral

stefanovich wrote: »

Also marked as slang.

I suppose the litmus test is whether it is generally considered offensive.

It is.

You said it wasn’t in the dictionary. It is. Not listed under slang either. Stop being so cocksure.

Anyway I never use it. Was merely wondering.

stefanovich

Omackeral wrote: »

You said it wasn’t in the dictionary. It is. Not listed under slang either. Stop being so cocksure.

Anyway I never use it. Was merely wondering.

Remind me never to try to help you again.

Omackeral

Embarrassing

Omackeral

Some Asian Americans (it’s always the Americans isn’t it?!) don’t mind using the term to reclaim it or even to celebrate their difference. I just think it’s mad how language and descriptors change over time. When I was in school, calling someone queer was absolutely not acceptable. Now it’s a celebrated in the term LGBTQ but I’m still not comfortable saying it.

46 Long

46 Long wrote: »

The nazi comparison is pretty meaningless but Churchill was a genuine white supremacist in fairness.

"I do not admit...for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race...has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

You won't find me coming to the defense of the lad who oversaw the introduction of the Black & Tans to Ireland

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

The nazi comparison is pretty meaningless but Churchill was a genuine white supremacist in fairness.

"I do not admit...for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race...has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill

He was a patriot, and an imperialist. Of course, he believed in the superiority of his culture, and people. They did manage to conquer/colonize a huge chunk of the world.

He was a man of his times. All the empires behaved in much the same way, whether it was the British Empire, the Belgians, or the Chinese. Cultures expanded and dominated those near, or those who were weaker than them. In most cases, they did so violently, and made little attempt at conversion.

The concept of race was very different back then.. as was the understanding and application of morality.

This is simply another attempt to apply modern thinking to history, and it shows a total ignorance for how society has developed over time.

You won't find me coming to the defense of the lad who oversaw the introduction of the Black & Tans to Ireland

It's not about defending Churchill. His use of chemical weapons in Africa, probably killed/hurt more people than the Black & Tans in Ireland.

It's about understanding and appreciating that people in the past lived in different times. We are (now) living at a point where a huge degree of moral advancement has been applied in our education, and used to steer society towards believing a 'right' way to live, and interact with other cultures/societies.

This superiority complex that many have about being 'enlightened' (compared to historical figures) is flawed, and merely seeks to avoid fixing the problems that continue to exist in modern society, instead, passing blame on to the past.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

He was a patriot, and an imperialist. Of course, he believed in the superiority of his culture, and people. They did manage to conquer/colonize a huge chunk of the world.

He was a man of his times. All the empires behaved in much the same way, whether it was the British Empire, the Belgians, or the Chinese. Cultures expanded and dominated those near, or those who were weaker than them. In most cases, they did so violently, and made little attempt at conversion.

The concept of race was very different back then.. as was the understanding and application of morality.

This is simply another attempt to apply modern thinking to history, and it shows a total ignorance for how society has developed over time.



It's not about defending Churchill. His use of chemical weapons in Africa, probably killed/hurt more people than the Black & Tans in Ireland.

It's about understanding and appreciating that people in the past lived in different times. We are (now) living at a point where a huge degree of moral advancement has been applied in our education, and used to steer society towards believing a 'right' way to live, and interact with other cultures/societies.

This superiority complex that many have about being 'enlightened' (compared to historical figures) is flawed, and merely seeks to avoid fixing the problems that continue to exist in modern society, instead, passing blame on to the past.

Yeah I agree for the most part about not trying to apply current views to figures of the past.

But.

I just said the man was a white supremacist. I think that's pretty inarguable given his rhetoric.

Furthermore even for his time he was more extreme than most:

Churchill's views on race as a whole were judged by his contemporaries, within the Conservative Party itself, to be extreme;[502] he once described Indians as "a beastly people with a beastly religion".[503] His personal doctor, Lord Moran, said of other races that: "Winston thinks only of the colour of their skin".[503] In 1955, Churchill expressed his support for the slogan "Keep England White" because he opposed immigration from the West Indies.[504] Churchill held a hierarchical perspective of race,[505] believing white people were most superior and black people the least.[506][507][502] He advocated against black or indigenous self-rule in Africa, Australia, the Caribbean, the Americas and India, believing that British imperialism in its colonies was for the good of the "primitive" and "subject races".[507][508] During an interview in 1902, while discussing his views on the Chinese, Churchill stated that the "great barbaric nations" would "menace civilised nations", but "the Aryan stock is bound to triumph".[509]

Batrachotox

Batrachotox wrote: »

Yeah I agree for the most part about not trying to apply current views to figures of the past.

But.

I just said the man was a white supremacist. I think that's pretty inarguable given his rhetoric.

Furthermore even for his time he was more extreme than most:

Of course he was a white supremacist.

The vast majority of people of his time would have been supremacists too. That was how they were educated. To believe that their culture was superior, and that they, as English (or whatever national/cultural group) people, had a duty to spread their culture abroad. You would have found a similar ideology in the powerful in Germany, or Japan during the same period. Even at a "worker" level, there would have been likely the same degree of superiority, as they read about their Empires expansion over barbarians, or their cultural enemies.

However, being a white supremacist meant different things back then, than it does today. It was far more connected to cultural superiority than actual race. We live in a world that has been shaped by the attempted genocide of the Jews. It has molded our thinking, our laws, and our morality. Churchill and others, didn't have that conditioning. They didn't live in an age of easy access to information. They were limited to the resources available to them, and those resources would have been controlled in a large degree by the forces within their own culture. (the Newspapers, 'approved' literature, the influence of the 'classics', etc)

We often take for granted the sheer amount of information that is available to us. We know what Marxism consisted of, because we have easy access to both the source material, but also accounts by others both within the movement, and externally. Few people at the time of Churchill would have had anything close to the same access that we do. Which is probably why National socialism or communism gained so much support. It wasn't easy to compare accounts of what it meant, and it's implications on the world.

But yes, he was a white supremacist. But then, I figure most people were. Or at least they viewed their own race or cultural group as being superior.

ExMachina1000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Of course he was a white supremacist.

The vast majority of people of his time would have been supremacists too. That was how they were educated. To believe that their culture was superior, and that they, as English (or whatever national/cultural group) people, had a duty to spread their culture abroad. You would have found a similar ideology in the powerful in Germany, or Japan during the same period. Even at a "worker" level, there would have been likely the same degree of superiority, as they read about their Empires expansion over barbarians, or their cultural enemies.

However, being a white supremacist meant different things back then, than it does today. It was far more connected to cultural superiority than actual race. We live in a world that has been shaped by the attempted genocide of the Jews. It has molded our thinking, our laws, and our morality. Churchill and others, didn't have that conditioning. They didn't live in an age of easy access to information. They were limited to the resources available to them, and those resources would have been controlled in a large degree by the forces within their own culture.

We often take for granted the sheer amount of information that is available to us. We know what Marxism consisted of, because we have easy access to both the source material, but also accounts by others both within the movement, and externally. Few people at the time of Churchill would have had anything close to the same access that we do. Which is probably why National socialism or communism gained so much support. It wasn't easy to compare accounts of what it meant, and it's implications on the world.

But yes, he was a white supremacist. But then, I figure most people were. Or at least they viewed their own race or cultural group as being superior.

Japanese people still believe their own culture is better. Japanese society is insular

Chinese people commit to the greater good theory and the CCP is intertwined through business and personal life

Strict Muslim states and societies believe the path of Islam is the only one worth following and all disbelievers are infidels.

There are plenty more examples.

Whether political, societal or religious these beliefs of superiority still exist throughout the world but it's only the white man and woman who are wrong and must be sorry.

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Whether political, societal or religious these beliefs of superiority still exist throughout the world but it's only the white man and woman who are wrong and must be sorry.

TBH I'm not quite sure what your point is. (in relation to my post)

It was western/white culture that originally pushed the idea, that White people should feel guilt over colonialism, slavery, imperialism, etc. The other racial groups have simply taken advantage of that movement for collective guilt, and double standards.

And within Asia, Japan are held up for guilt over their actions in China, just as the Germans are held up for guilt over their actions in WW2. I don't see anything similar in Africa, but then, they seem to have a different perspective on guilt over genocide. Probably because they've engaged in more of them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

silverharp wrote: »

deffo didnt see this coming lol

https://twitter.com/GarbyJooman3/status/1360524268979822595

There’s a storyline on Modern Family from around the second season where Cam and Mitchell are told they are a shoo-in for the last place at some exclusive nursery school because they are a gay couple with a adopted child from Vietnam. Until in through the door arrives a mixed race lesbian couple where one half of the couple is in a wheelchair and their adopted baby is African. They are trumped in the diversity stakes. So this was the kind of thing that was parody a decade ago but is now just happening. :pac: Rarely, I’m sure, and probably just in liberal bastions like San Francisco but still though, it’s amusing.