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

UK government starting to protect "free speech" in universities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-55995979

Free speech plan to tackle 'silencing' views on university campus
The government has announced plans for a "free speech champion" to ensure universities in England do not stifle freedom of speech and expression.

The champion will regulate matters such as "no-platforming" of speakers by universities or student unions.

Prominent "woke" proponents are trying to snuff it out.

The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus.

Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.

RandRuns

Deleted User wrote: »

UK government starting to protect "free speech" in universities.



https://www.bbc.com/news/education-55995979





Prominent "woke" proponents are trying to snuff it out.

It's funny that they still call Tatchell a "gay rights activist" rather than what he really is.

Kivaro

Deleted User wrote: »

UK government starting to protect "free speech" in universities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-55995979



Prominent "woke" proponents are trying to snuff it out.

The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus.


Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.

Seems to be an awful lot of gay rights activists pushing the cancel culture and against any notion that opposing views to their own should ever be allowed heard or seen. You can see that here on boards too. If your are not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them, and they want any discussion on potentially contentious social topics immediately shut down .......... with their war cry of "far right". Lots of hypocrisy going on with these so-called activists.

silverharp

in 20 years either all actors will be AI , or you will be able to swap them like in computer games?

Kivaro

Kivaro wrote: »

Seems to be an awful lot of gay rights activists pushing the cancel culture and against any notion that opposing views to their own should ever be allowed heard or seen. You can see that here on boards too. If your are not 100% with them, then you are 100% against them, and they want any discussion on potentially contentious social topics immediately shut down .......... with their war cry of "far right". Lots of hypocrisy going on with these so-called activists.

If only Milo Yiannopolous, Douglas Murray and Andy Ngo were afforded the same tolerance and inclusion that their enemies claim to be in favour of.

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

so we all go in the same door now and there's no discrimination

We always did in this country. So no need to import American woke crap. Because over there, affirmative action is a racialised response to a racial past. Here, no need.

RandRuns

RandRuns wrote: »

It's funny that they still call Tatchell a "gay rights activist" rather than what he really is.

I’ve always liked him. Seems an old school liberal. He’s been deplatformed himself, and accused of being a transphobe (natch) and a racist.

Even the guardian thought that was too much.

[url] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/peter-tatchell-racist-no-platform-controversy-silences-freedom-of-speech[/url]

biko

Deleted User wrote: »

The same thing is happening with regards to race. We've now got music concerts or other organisations, with coloured only sections, or white people being excluded entirely.

People are actually ok with segregation, as long as it is on their own terms.

RandRuns

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve always liked him. Seems an old school liberal. He’s been deplatformed himself.

He's a bit too much of a sneaking regarder of paedophillia for my liking.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

It's hardly anything new. Women/feminism sought the end of male only clubs/organisations based on grounds of sexism, only to create female only clubs/organisations that exclude men. Justifications and excuses abound as to why women should be allowed such women only zones, but it's a reinforcement of double standards being fine for one group over another.

The same thing is happening with regards to race. We've now got music concerts or other organisations, with colored only sections, or white people being excluded entirely.

Because these movements don't want equality based on gender or race. They want more rights than their chosen opponent. For feminism, that means women having rights to things that men can't do.. and for Black people, that means excluding others based on race, but white people won't be allowed to do similar.

There are two different things here: black supremacists and racists (BLM, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam) which are pretty open in what they do and what their agenda is. And then we have the new covert racism driven by the whites that seem to think that blacks will not able to succeed without their help. At least the former are more honest and open about their racism.

biko

biko wrote: »

People are actually ok with segregation, as long as it is on their own terms.

Sure.. but if segregation is acceptable then it should be available to all... all or none. One or the other.

Personally, I'm against it entirely since I've been refused to nightclubs or activity clubs (gyms) because I was a foreigner. It didn't feel nice to be excluded based on my race.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve always liked him. Seems an old school liberal. He’s been deplatformed himself, and accused of being a transphobe (natch) and a racist.

Even the guardian thought that was too much.

[url] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/15/peter-tatchell-racist-no-platform-controversy-silences-freedom-of-speech[/url]

Then he should be in favour of a free-speech "Tsar" - given that he himself has been the victim of cancel culture. Some people are beyond helping.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

There are two different things here: black supremacists and racists (BLM, Black Panthers, Nation of Islam) which are pretty open in what they do and what their agenda is.

Ahh well, I see them as being the same thing. Black supremacists are racists. Just as white supremacists are racists.

And then we have the new covert racism driven by the whites that seem to think that blacks will not able to succeed without their help. At least the former are more honest and open about their racism.

It's pretty accurate that they do need help from the Whites to be successful, considering the range of Black communities that are run down and essentially failures. If Black people were able to do it on their own, without support from others, then they would have done so before now, and it would have happened in far more locations (I assume we're talking about the US here?).

Although, I have to question this covert racism by whites... Most of what I've seen related to this has come from Black organisations/speakers saying that they don't need help from the "White man", but demanding more funding/resources from the State. Ignoring that the state is still predominately composed of white people, and the resources available are coming from areas which White people provide.

I wouldn't consider that to be racism.

Fritzbox

Deleted User wrote: »

-

Peter Tatchell, a gay rights activist, said the plan for a free speech tsar was part of a "cynical culture war" to use "hot-button culture issues" to secure political advantage.

That might be a bit rich, coming from him, surely?

silverharp

Fritzbox wrote: »

That might be a bit rich, coming from him, surely?

First they came for....... , they finally got to Pete

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well, I see them as being the same thing. Black supremacists are racists. Just as white supremacists are racists.

Little misunderstanding here, those 2 things are the black racists and the white racists.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's pretty accurate that they do need help from the Whites to be successful, considering the range of Black communities that are run down and essentially failures. If Black people were able to do it on their own, without support from others, then they would have done so before now, and it would have happened in far more locations (I assume we're talking about the US here?).

Of course we're talking about the US of A, the best source of woke BS
Any person of any race coming from a disadvantaged community needs the same amount of help. But sure, there are some problems that mostly affect the black communities, like absent fathers and gangs, but making these issues better seems to be a second priority now, that is, assuming they are still acknowledged.

Deleted User wrote: »

Although, I have to question this covert racism by whites... Most of what I've seen related to this has come from Black organisations/speakers saying that they don't need help from the "White man", but demanding more funding/resources from the State. Ignoring that the state is still predominately composed of white people, and the resources available are coming from areas which White people provide.

I wouldn't consider that to be racism.

Well, blacks looking after their own communities are not really racist (whites are when they do the same), but I was talking about this whole diversity is our strength BS which is mostly pushed by white people.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

Little misunderstanding here, those 2 things are the black racists and the white racists.

Misunderstanding? Yup. I'm still confused as to what you want to suggest, and how it relates to what I wrote.

Of course we're talking about the US of A, the best source of woke BS
Any person of any race coming from a disadvantaged community needs the same amount of help. But sure, there are some problems that mostly affect the black communities, like absent fathers and gangs, but making these issues better seems to be a second priority now, that is, assuming they are still acknowledged.

Which is not, actually, true. Those same problems affect 'redneck' white poor areas throughout the US, with absent fathers, domestic abuse, gangs, and drug use being commonplace. Apart from the absent fathers (although it still happens) you can find the same problems in Hispanic communities in the US.

In any case, I don't actually see how that relates to your previously quoted piece, and my own response.

These problems are known, and acknowledged. Personally, I feel the big problem is how it's externalised. There is rarely any acknowledgment for Black people to resolve the problems within their own culture, instead passing responsibility for it existing, on to external influences. You see similar with other racial groups, although generally, there's less sympathy given.

Well, blacks looking after their own communities are not really racist (whites are when they do the same), but I was talking about this whole diversity is our strength BS which is mostly pushed by white people.

Sure, I get that. Diversity isn't a strength, because they've never managed to create a stable foundation to support it. It's always about various agendas, leading to division, not unity. Elevating one group over another with too many strings attached showing virtue or some other nonsense.

stefanovich

Just imagine the outcry if the was a channel called White Entertainment Television.

rightmove

stefanovich wrote: »

Just imagine the outcry if the was a channel called White Entertainment Television.

At this stage they should rename RTE to MNHB (mna na heireann bán)

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

Misunderstanding? Yup. I'm still confused as to what you want to suggest, and how it relates to what I wrote.

I wanted to suggest that there are 2 groups, black racists and white racist, I never wanted to imply that that black(and white) supremacists are not racists.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is not, actually, true. Those same problems affect 'redneck' white poor areas throughout the US, with absent fathers, domestic abuse, gangs, and drug use being commonplace. Apart from the absent fathers (although it still happens) you can find the same problems in Hispanic communities in the US.

https://www.actrochester.org/children-youth/single-parent-families-by-race-ethnicity#:~:text=In%202015%2D19%2C%20the%20share,and%2020%25%20among%20Asian%20families.
Of course this problem affects every community but the black communities are the most affected.
Same with the gangs, there's gangs everywhere but none are as bad as the black gangs in the US.

Deleted User wrote: »

These problems are known, and acknowledged. Personally, I feel the big problem is how it's externalised. There is rarely any acknowledgment for Black people to resolve the problems within their own culture, instead passing responsibility for it existing, on to external influences. You see similar with other racial groups, although generally, there's less sympathy given.

I think in the recent years, at least in the mainstream, the underlying problems are becoming more and more ignored, and the focus shifts towards fixing the effects of these problems instead of trying to address the problems at source.

Cordell

Cordell wrote: »

I wanted to suggest that there are 2 groups, black racists and white racist, I never wanted to imply that that black(and white) supremacists are not racists.

Ok. Although I didn't think you were implying that... I just didn't understand your logic.

https://www.actrochester.org/children-youth/single-parent-families-by-race-ethnicity#:~:text=In%202015%2D19%2C%20the%20share,and%2020%25%20among%20Asian%20families.
Of course this problem affects every community but the black communities are the most affected.
Same with the gangs, there's gangs everywhere but none are as bad as the black gangs in the US.

So what? I mean, yes, it happens most in Black communities, and even the link you provided, when asking why this exists, seeks to externalise the factors causing it, rather than ask what is wrong within African American culture that encourages these behaviors to manifest. It's a blame game rather than a resolution game.

I don't see how that relates to your previous claim of covert white racism though.

I think in the recent years, at least in the mainstream, the underlying problems are becoming more and more ignored, and the focus shifts towards fixing the effects of these problems instead of trying to address the problems at source.

Ahh well... I don't think there's any such change, and that's always been the focus.

Ash.J.Williams

stefanovich wrote: »

Just imagine the outcry if the was a channel called White Entertainment Television.

A team all day every day

randd1

stefanovich wrote: »

Just imagine the outcry if the was a channel called White Entertainment Television.

Sure they have that already.

They just named it Fox News.

randd1

randd1 wrote: »

Sure they have that already.

They just named it Fox News.

Isn’t that a news channel.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn’t that a news channel.

It’s a network

Danzy

Fritzbox wrote: »

That might be a bit rich, coming from him, surely?

Bit forgetful as well, not long ago he was being called a racist and Islamophobe for protesting at a Labour Mayor in London meeting an Islamic Sheikh who speaks on the need to kill gays etc.

Incidentally he is one of the most important Sunni clerics in the world and at the top for most of European based Sunnis.

Cordell

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Although I didn't think you were implying that... I just didn't understand your logic.

OK then, I'll summarize my POV as:
There are the openly racists and supremacists, both black and white, I think we all agree here.
But, in my opinion, those mostly white wokies "championing" diversity are also racist. Either by the bigotry of low expectation, or by trying to redeem themselves for their racist thoughts they are trying too hard to make some changes that normally should not happen by force.

stefanovich

randd1 wrote: »

Sure they have that already.

They just named it Fox News.

Harris Faulkner and Juan Williams would disagree with you.

Ash.J.Williams

Cordell wrote: »

OK then, I'll summarize my POV as:
There are the openly racists and supremacists, both black and white, I think we all agree here.
But, in my opinion, those mostly white wokies "championing" diversity are also racist. Either by the bigotry of low expectation, or by trying to redeem themselves for their racist thoughts they are trying too hard to make some changes that normally should not happen by force.

Most big companies in Ireland would have mandatory staff training on these matters so there’s a possibility you’re mistaking them for being “wokies” when in fact they’re just part of a modern diverse workforce

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Harris Faulkner and Juan Williams would disagree with you.

...and Donna Brazile.

There's more. You want more?