Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 18:08:22 GMT
One of the fundamental core traits of fascism is a total intolerance to opposing views. Anyone having them can expect to be silenced in some way often with the use of intimidation and threats and at the very least discredited. Its a fascist trait very common in the far left and the overtly woke obsessed. See DATM for examples. TBH I'm struggling to think of anyone currently active on there that I would describe as properly "woke". Hukkas had a tendency to lose his rag from time to time but he was at least willing to debate the points he made. Artysid was always an interesting poster who provided thought provoking questions. Deepspace always challenged peoples' views in a non-aggressive way. TBH, that's why I always enjoyed the politics section over there - whether I agreed with people or not there was usually an interesting discussion. I'm pleased that this place is dispelling some of my previous concerns about it being nothing more than an echo chamber and as it grows, there are more and more persepctives being put forward to make it interesting. Genuine "woke/fascist" nastiness was always pretty rare (not forgetting that the subject matter meant it did sometimes get heated). I fully agree. I think 'cancelling' was done by the admins. Whilst this was heavy-handed (in my view) I don't believe it was ideological. I just think they shat themselves and/or the workload was too much. The names you mentioned were always eloquent, engaging and responded to specific points, rather than use straw man arguments. But then I'd say the same about many on the 'other' side - a lot of whom are here now. I genuinely can't recall anybody trying to stifle debate nor invoke bans - with the one possible exception towards a poster who has resurfaced here (which I feel was morally and legally acceptable). Just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're cancelled. Just because you're outnumbered/outvoted on an issue doesn't mean you are deliberately ignored. There is no conspiracy. Huddersfield overwhelmingly returns a Labour candidate. Is it then so unusual to find a majority of leftwing leaning people on a Huddersfield Town forum? Of course not. It's not entryism nor a shadowy cabal. It's representative. Understand that and shake off the hang ups. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 6, 2022 18:23:10 GMT
TBH I'm struggling to think of anyone currently active on there that I would describe as properly "woke". Hukkas had a tendency to lose his rag from time to time but he was at least willing to debate the points he made. Artysid was always an interesting poster who provided thought provoking questions. Deepspace always challenged peoples' views in a non-aggressive way. TBH, that's why I always enjoyed the politics section over there - whether I agreed with people or not there was usually an interesting discussion. I'm pleased that this place is dispelling some of my previous concerns about it being nothing more than an echo chamber and as it grows, there are more and more persepctives being put forward to make it interesting. Genuine "woke/fascist" nastiness was always pretty rare (not forgetting that the subject matter meant it did sometimes get heated). I fully agree. I think 'cancelling' was done by the admins. Whilst this was heavy-handed (in my view) I don't believe it was ideological. I just think they shat themselves and/or the workload was too much. The names you mentioned were always eloquent, engaging and responded to specific points, rather than use straw man arguments. But then I'd say the same about many on the 'other' side - a lot of whom are here now. I genuinely can't recall anybody trying to stifle debate nor invoke bans - with the one possible exception towards a poster who has resurfaced here (which I feel was morally and legally acceptable). Just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're cancelled. Just because you're outnumbered/outvoted on an issue doesn't mean you are deliberately ignored. There is no conspiracy. Huddersfield overwhelmingly returns a Labour candidate. Is it then so unusual to find a majority of leftwing leaning people on a Huddersfield Town forum? Of course not. It's not entryism nor a shadowy cabal. It's representative. Understand that and shake off the hang ups. Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 6, 2022 18:43:03 GMT
I fully agree. I think 'cancelling' was done by the admins. Whilst this was heavy-handed (in my view) I don't believe it was ideological. I just think they shat themselves and/or the workload was too much. The names you mentioned were always eloquent, engaging and responded to specific points, rather than use straw man arguments. But then I'd say the same about many on the 'other' side - a lot of whom are here now. I genuinely can't recall anybody trying to stifle debate nor invoke bans - with the one possible exception towards a poster who has resurfaced here (which I feel was morally and legally acceptable). Just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're cancelled. Just because you're outnumbered/outvoted on an issue doesn't mean you are deliberately ignored. There is no conspiracy. Huddersfield overwhelmingly returns a Labour candidate. Is it then so unusual to find a majority of leftwing leaning people on a Huddersfield Town forum? Of course not. It's not entryism nor a shadowy cabal. It's representative. Understand that and shake off the hang ups. Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. Absolutely. Its just divide and conquer tactics. Political correctness stems from Stalinism in the late 20s and was used to shut down dissent at that time. Then with the advent of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and later the Tavistock Institute it has been spread worldwide. Its just a control mechanism to make people afraid to open their mouths about anything that contradicts the prevailing totalitarian agenda, for fear of being accused of some 'ism' or other. I once said this on DATM - several years ago - and was shouted down by folk who have not bothered to do a single second's research on these topics. (including Grim as it goes) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 19:45:52 GMT
I fully agree. I think 'cancelling' was done by the admins. Whilst this was heavy-handed (in my view) I don't believe it was ideological. I just think they shat themselves and/or the workload was too much. The names you mentioned were always eloquent, engaging and responded to specific points, rather than use straw man arguments. But then I'd say the same about many on the 'other' side - a lot of whom are here now. I genuinely can't recall anybody trying to stifle debate nor invoke bans - with the one possible exception towards a poster who has resurfaced here (which I feel was morally and legally acceptable). Just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're cancelled. Just because you're outnumbered/outvoted on an issue doesn't mean you are deliberately ignored. There is no conspiracy. Huddersfield overwhelmingly returns a Labour candidate. Is it then so unusual to find a majority of leftwing leaning people on a Huddersfield Town forum? Of course not. It's not entryism nor a shadowy cabal. It's representative. Understand that and shake off the hang ups. Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. Ok. There's a few concurrent arguments going on here. Realmadkid, you are going down some deep, dark historical conspiracy rabbitholes. They may be perfectly sound, but that's wider than this debate about DATM. LTown, my abiding memory of you on there was someone asking you a perfectly reasonable question about vaccines (actually, it wasn't even a question. Just asking you for evidence to back up an earlier statement you'd made). You ignored it and ignored it. In fact, you could say that you cancelled him... It made Paxman and Howard look like Parkinson and Connolly. Starmer does favour stricter lockdowns. But that's not the point being made here. If the issue is vitriol towards the Tories, well the Tories are in power. Anger is always directed to the ruling class. That's the nature of satire. If woke means socially progressive, I'd agree that this is more prevalent in those on the left. But I'll let you into a secret: ex-miners sitting in working men's clubs in northern England hate Owen Jones just as much as you do 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 6, 2022 20:27:35 GMT
Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. Ok. There's a few concurrent arguments going on here. Realmadkid, you are going down some deep, dark historical conspiracy rabbitholes. They may be perfectly sound, but that's wider than this debate about DATM. LTown, my abiding memory of you on there was someone asking you a perfectly reasonable question about vaccines (actually, it wasn't even a question. Just asking you for evidence to back up an earlier statement you'd made). You ignored it and ignored it. In fact, you could say that you cancelled him... It made Paxman and Howard look like Parkinson and Connolly. Starmer does favour stricter lockdowns. But that's not the point being made here. If the issue is vitriol towards the Tories, well the Tories are in power. Anger is always directed to the ruling class. That's the nature of satire. If woke means socially progressive, I'd agree that this is more prevalent in those on the left. But I'll let you into a secret: ex-miners sitting in working men's clubs in northern England hate Owen Jones just as much as you do 😉 If you are talking about Blue Eyes, I answered the question numerous times, as did Galph2400, or whatever his username was. Blue Eyes was not happy with the answer, but that was his problem. Like Artysid, he continually dodged legitimate questions with inane questions. Blue Eyes claimed to be against vaccine coercion, but at the same time favoured vaccinating everybody. He was never able to reconcile this contradiction, despite my numerous requests. He continually resorted to accusations of conspiracy; usually the predictable anti-vax tropes. There is progressive and progressive. The woke claim to be progressive but, well, we have been through that... |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Jan 6, 2022 21:03:57 GMT
Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. Absolutely. Its just divide and conquer tactics. Political correctness stems from Stalinism in the late 20s and was used to shut down dissent at that time. Then with the advent of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and later the Tavistock Institute it has been spread worldwide. Its just a control mechanism to make people afraid to open their mouths about anything that contradicts the prevailing totalitarian agenda, for fear of being accused of some 'ism' or other. I once said this on DATM - several years ago - and was shouted down by folk who have not bothered to do a single second's research on these topics. (including Grim as it goes) I won't shout you down but I do disagree! If you are defining political correctness as the shutting down of dissent, then you have to go a lot further back to find the origins of it, and many more examples that show how it (whatever 'it' is exactly) has perpetuated or thrived. We can find examples of being forced to adopt a pre-determined set of beliefs in the Old Testament, & could certainly argue that Jesus was executed for failing to comply. The French Revolution gives us solid examples as do many other things. But as I say, we need to decide, as with so-called wokeism, what are we actually discussing? Are you saying that we have a "prevailing totalitarian agenda"? If we don't then there's a clear contradiction in your definition which actually turns political correctness into a form of dissent. I think if you are trying to differentiate between governance & an agenda, that seems a very difficult concept to me.
I don't see Stalinism as being the beginning of anything in particular, just a 20th century evolution of severe government oppression & supression of dissent. But certainly nothing new, other than the mechanisms used for enforcement, which in many respects were just a technological progression.
I can't claim to be an expert on the Frankfurt School & even less so on Tavistock, but my understanding of Frankfurt in particular was that it was critical of the prevailing philosophies & ideologies of the day (including both fascism & communism) for being too limiting & saw as their primary goal the promotion of critical thinking. Happy to stand corrected on that though.
Personally, I repeat what I've already said. I think terms like wokeism are just labels being adopted by people who don't like the message; what we need is people who can actually deconstruct whatever it is about the message underneath the label & present either compromise solutions or alternatives that silence or marginalise whatever it is they don't like. Saying this one is woke, that one is PC is as utterly useless as saying this one is a fascist & the other a Commie. It just doesn't help anybody.
|
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 6, 2022 21:07:00 GMT
Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. Ok. There's a few concurrent arguments going on here. Realmadkid, you are going down some deep, dark historical conspiracy rabbitholes. They may be perfectly sound, but that's wider than this debate about DATM.LTown, my abiding memory of you on there was someone asking you a perfectly reasonable question about vaccines (actually, it wasn't even a question. Just asking you for evidence to back up an earlier statement you'd made). You ignored it and ignored it. In fact, you could say that you cancelled him... It made Paxman and Howard look like Parkinson and Connolly. Starmer does favour stricter lockdowns. But that's not the point being made here. If the issue is vitriol towards the Tories, well the Tories are in power. Anger is always directed to the ruling class. That's the nature of satire. If woke means socially progressive, I'd agree that this is more prevalent in those on the left. But I'll let you into a secret: ex-miners sitting in working men's clubs in northern England hate Owen Jones just as much as you do 😉 Fair enough mate but if you notice I wasn't actually replying to you it was to LTown. And incidentally in case you were in any doubt, what I said may be conspiracy in essence, but just because something is labelled 'conspiracy' doesn't mean its incorrect. Conspiracies DO actually happen, believe it or not. Just saying. |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 6, 2022 21:19:37 GMT
Absolutely. Its just divide and conquer tactics. Political correctness stems from Stalinism in the late 20s and was used to shut down dissent at that time. Then with the advent of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s and later the Tavistock Institute it has been spread worldwide. Its just a control mechanism to make people afraid to open their mouths about anything that contradicts the prevailing totalitarian agenda, for fear of being accused of some 'ism' or other. I once said this on DATM - several years ago - and was shouted down by folk who have not bothered to do a single second's research on these topics. (including Grim as it goes) I won't shout you down but I do disagree! If you are defining political correctness as the shutting down of dissent, then you have to go a lot further back to find the origins of it, and many more examples that show how it (whatever 'it' is exactly) has perpetuated or thrived. We can find examples of being forced to adopt a pre-determined set of beliefs in the Old Testament, & could certainly argue that Jesus was executed for failing to comply. The French Revolution gives us solid examples as do many other things. But as I say, we need to decide, as with so-called wokeism, what are we actually discussing? Are you saying that we have a "prevailing totalitarian agenda"? If we don't then there's a clear contradiction in your definition which actually turns political correctness into a form of dissent. I think if you are trying to differentiate between governance & an agenda, that seems a very difficult concept to me.
I don't see Stalinism as being the beginning of anything in particular, just a 20th century evolution of severe government oppression & supression of dissent. But certainly nothing new, other than the mechanisms used for enforcement, which in many respects were just a technological progression.
I can't claim to be an expert on the Frankfurt School & even less so on Tavistock, but my understanding of Frankfurt in particular was that it was critical of the prevailing philosophies & ideologies of the day (including both fascism & communism) for being too limiting & saw as their primary goal the promotion of critical thinking. Happy to stand corrected on that though.
Personally, I repeat what I've already said. I think terms like wokeism are just labels being adopted by people who don't like the message; what we need is people who can actually deconstruct whatever it is about the message underneath the label & present either compromise solutions or alternatives that silence or marginalise whatever it is they don't like. Saying this one is woke, that one is PC is as utterly useless as saying this one is a fascist & the other a Commie. It just doesn't help anybody.
I wasn't particularly responding to 'wokeism.' I really don't have any opinion on that. As I said to Iffy, I was replying to and agreeing with LTown's point about the left right paradigm. Fair enough, I then went on to pontificate about Stalinism and its connection to the Frankfurt School and Tavistock - which by the way are pure Marxism in action. I do take your points about the deeper and ancient historical perspectives. Its way deeper than simple non-compliance though. Political correctness (or at least the modern use of the term) absolutely began with Stalinism as I say - and I still maintain this to be the truth having spent almost quarter of a century as a professional geopolitical researcher and having written extensively about all aspects of this particular subject. Fascism/communism/Marxism etc. It was then the Frankfurt School that took up the baton and formulated a long-term plan to use it as a weapon against dissent, a tactic which was also then taken-up by its counterpart the Tavistock Institute more recently. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2022 21:28:56 GMT
Ok. There's a few concurrent arguments going on here. Realmadkid, you are going down some deep, dark historical conspiracy rabbitholes. They may be perfectly sound, but that's wider than this debate about DATM.LTown, my abiding memory of you on there was someone asking you a perfectly reasonable question about vaccines (actually, it wasn't even a question. Just asking you for evidence to back up an earlier statement you'd made). You ignored it and ignored it. In fact, you could say that you cancelled him... It made Paxman and Howard look like Parkinson and Connolly. Starmer does favour stricter lockdowns. But that's not the point being made here. If the issue is vitriol towards the Tories, well the Tories are in power. Anger is always directed to the ruling class. That's the nature of satire. If woke means socially progressive, I'd agree that this is more prevalent in those on the left. But I'll let you into a secret: ex-miners sitting in working men's clubs in northern England hate Owen Jones just as much as you do 😉 Fair enough mate but if you notice I wasn't actually replying to you it was to LTown. And incidentally in case you were in any doubt, what I said may be conspiracy in essence, but just because something is labelled 'conspiracy' doesn't mean its incorrect. Conspiracies DO actually happen, believe it or not. Just saying. Gulf of Tonkin, MK Ultra, syphilis 'treatments' in the Southern States. I'm not saying that every conspiracy theory is false. Just that because some conspiracies turn out to be true, it doesn't make them all true (especially as so many contradict each other). |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Jan 6, 2022 21:31:48 GMT
I won't shout you down but I do disagree! If you are defining political correctness as the shutting down of dissent, then you have to go a lot further back to find the origins of it, and many more examples that show how it (whatever 'it' is exactly) has perpetuated or thrived. We can find examples of being forced to adopt a pre-determined set of beliefs in the Old Testament, & could certainly argue that Jesus was executed for failing to comply. The French Revolution gives us solid examples as do many other things. But as I say, we need to decide, as with so-called wokeism, what are we actually discussing? Are you saying that we have a "prevailing totalitarian agenda"? If we don't then there's a clear contradiction in your definition which actually turns political correctness into a form of dissent. I think if you are trying to differentiate between governance & an agenda, that seems a very difficult concept to me.
I don't see Stalinism as being the beginning of anything in particular, just a 20th century evolution of severe government oppression & supression of dissent. But certainly nothing new, other than the mechanisms used for enforcement, which in many respects were just a technological progression.
I can't claim to be an expert on the Frankfurt School & even less so on Tavistock, but my understanding of Frankfurt in particular was that it was critical of the prevailing philosophies & ideologies of the day (including both fascism & communism) for being too limiting & saw as their primary goal the promotion of critical thinking. Happy to stand corrected on that though.
Personally, I repeat what I've already said. I think terms like wokeism are just labels being adopted by people who don't like the message; what we need is people who can actually deconstruct whatever it is about the message underneath the label & present either compromise solutions or alternatives that silence or marginalise whatever it is they don't like. Saying this one is woke, that one is PC is as utterly useless as saying this one is a fascist & the other a Commie. It just doesn't help anybody.
I wasn't particularly responding to 'wokeism.' I really don't have any opinion on that. As I said to Iffy, I was replying to and agreeing with LTown's point about the left right paradigm. Fair enough, I then went on to pontificate about Stalinism and its connection to the Frankfurt School and Tavistock - which by the way are pure Marxism in action. I do take your points about the deeper and ancient historical perspectives. Its way deeper than simple non-compliance though. Political correctness (or at least the modern use of the term) absolutely began with Stalinism as I say - and I still maintain this to be the truth having spent almost quarter of a century as a professional geopolitical researcher and having written extensively about all aspects of this particular subject. Fascism/communism/Marxism etc. It was then the Frankfurt School that took up the baton and formulated a long-term plan to use it as a weapon against dissent, a tactic which was also then taken-up by its counterpart the Tavistock Institute more recently. It's a fascinating subject & maybe not one too many people want to get too deeply into. I would really need to do some reading about Frankfurt & Tavistock as my knowledge is based on probably a couple of 3-month philosophy courses nigh on 40 years ago! I am very intrigued though about how you are defining PC, because a lot of the issues I have on this subject revolve around a perspective that many people don't seem able to define it. What was it that Stalin did that was PC that no-one before him had done? And how did that create a paradigm shift that evolved into what people brand as PC today? I'm genuinely interested in getting a handle on this in my mind as sometimes debating the whole issue of PC, cancel culture or wokeism feels a bit like knitting fog at times. |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 6, 2022 21:46:34 GMT
Fair enough mate but if you notice I wasn't actually replying to you it was to LTown. And incidentally in case you were in any doubt, what I said may be conspiracy in essence, but just because something is labelled 'conspiracy' doesn't mean its incorrect. Conspiracies DO actually happen, believe it or not. Just saying. Gulf of Tonkin, MK Ultra, syphilis 'treatments' in the Southern States. I'm not saying that every conspiracy theory is false. Just that because some conspiracies turn out to be true, it doesn't make them all true (especially as so many contradict each other). No argument from me on that mate! Its just that anything that's labelled as a 'conspiracy' tends to be regarded as a fantasy by the general populace. And as you rightly say, that's far from being the case. Incidentally the term 'conspiracy theory' was coined in the mid 60s to discredit anyone who was getting close to the truth about the Kennedy assassination. |
|
|
|
Post by realmadkid on Jan 6, 2022 21:53:24 GMT
I wasn't particularly responding to 'wokeism.' I really don't have any opinion on that. As I said to Iffy, I was replying to and agreeing with LTown's point about the left right paradigm. Fair enough, I then went on to pontificate about Stalinism and its connection to the Frankfurt School and Tavistock - which by the way are pure Marxism in action. I do take your points about the deeper and ancient historical perspectives. Its way deeper than simple non-compliance though. Political correctness (or at least the modern use of the term) absolutely began with Stalinism as I say - and I still maintain this to be the truth having spent almost quarter of a century as a professional geopolitical researcher and having written extensively about all aspects of this particular subject. Fascism/communism/Marxism etc. It was then the Frankfurt School that took up the baton and formulated a long-term plan to use it as a weapon against dissent, a tactic which was also then taken-up by its counterpart the Tavistock Institute more recently. It's a fascinating subject & maybe not one too many people want to get too deeply into. I would really need to do some reading about Frankfurt & Tavistock as my knowledge is based on probably a couple of 3-month philosophy courses nigh on 40 years ago! I am very intrigued though about how you are defining PC, because a lot of the issues I have on this subject revolve around a perspective that many people don't seem able to define it. What was it that Stalin did that was PC that no-one before him had done? And how did that create a paradigm shift that evolved into what people brand as PC today? I'm genuinely interested in getting a handle on this in my mind as sometimes debating the whole issue of PC, cancel culture or wokeism feels a bit like knitting fog at times. Fair enough mate. I agree re the whole issue - its far from straightforward, for sure. Loads of info out there on the web but care needs to be taken, there is also a lot of disinfo too. As I say I have written about the whole topic extensively in my books but here is a quick and dirty explanation I just found with a quick search. It would seem to be perfectly sound (in my opinion). www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/historical-origin-political-correctness/Hope that helps a little! |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Jan 6, 2022 22:24:20 GMT
It's a fascinating subject & maybe not one too many people want to get too deeply into. I would really need to do some reading about Frankfurt & Tavistock as my knowledge is based on probably a couple of 3-month philosophy courses nigh on 40 years ago! I am very intrigued though about how you are defining PC, because a lot of the issues I have on this subject revolve around a perspective that many people don't seem able to define it. What was it that Stalin did that was PC that no-one before him had done? And how did that create a paradigm shift that evolved into what people brand as PC today? I'm genuinely interested in getting a handle on this in my mind as sometimes debating the whole issue of PC, cancel culture or wokeism feels a bit like knitting fog at times. Fair enough mate. I agree re the whole issue - its far from straightforward, for sure. Loads of info out there on the web but care needs to be taken, there is also a lot of disinfo too. As I say I have written about the whole topic extensively in my books but here is a quick and dirty explanation I just found with a quick search. It would seem to be perfectly sound (in my opinion). www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/historical-origin-political-correctness/Hope that helps a little! I couldn't get at the 'deep dive' article but will search elsewhere but my immediate reaction to reading the one you linked was that it seemed to start from a premise that Marxism was to blame rather than concluding that from a review of differing historical contexts. The initial focus was on the etymology of the term rather than trying to define it. I can see that the concept of a political party defining political truth and acting against dissenters is a 20th century (but not necessarily Stalinist) concept but all that seems to do is frame it against a particular point in time rather than being able to define a paradigm shift. This is probably heading on a very boring direction I imagine for most people, but I appreciate the link. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Jan 6, 2022 22:55:54 GMT
Using any of those terms is largely pointless but there is a difference in the terms which has relevance to using them accurately. Fascism was a name chosen to apply to a political movement & used the symbolism of ancient Rome to create a Nationalistic & populist movement. The faces (careful how you spell that boys & girls) symbolised a kind of 'us against the world' psychology, of which race wasn't a major factor earlier on...Mussolini was far more worried about Communists than Jews. Nazism wasn't just an abbreviation for a random party that Hitler used as a tool. He, of course, was fuelled by an assortment of hatreds & set out to eliminate them one by one. Although he hit Communists even before he hit Jews. In both cases though, if you strip away the persecution & murder (!) then what's left were two nations that were largely using Keynesian policies to repair their economies at a time when Britain was still pretending it could get back to the economy-wrecking gold standard. Communism is a defined political doctrine that various political groups have adopted to define their political stance. Granted the end result didn't look that different, but if you want to start bandying these things around as anything more than playground insults, then at least there should be some level of understanding as to what they are. Woke culture in my mind then isn't any sort of *ism. It is what it is insofar as we can agree on any sort of consensus. People are doing what people always have & always will do. Shouting, having tantrums, causing chaos to get what they want. That's happened forever one way or another, but it really isn't either a doctrine nor a movement. It's just people making a noise about what matters to them. Working-class people, then women got the vote by doing that. Actually the wealthiest of the middle-classes got the vote almost a century earlier by doing just that. Equal rights & pay happened because people did that. Health & Safety at work happened because people did that. Blair potentially could lose his knighthood if enough people do that. Plus thousands of issues, large & small; local & national. So we have to be clear, are people upset about the tactics, or the issue? If you object to the tactics because you don't like the message then that's really just the opposite side of the same coin in my eyes. Interesting points made, but just to refer to your last paragraph, I do think it's got a lot worse in the last 5 or 6 years. Perhaps understandably. We're in politically interesting times. Brexit divided opinion. Corbyn's leadership of the labour party divided opinion. We've had a pandemic which appears to have crystallised peoples' attitudes as there was less to distract people from political issues. BLM & the various rhetoric surrounding it divided opinion. As a result of these, peoples' passions get inflamed but the unfortunate consequence of that is an increased tendency to view anyone who disagrees with "me" does not just have a different perspective. They're not just "wrong", they're genuinely evil. Anyone who asks questions that make "me" uncomfortable will be straw-manned & "cancelled" - or told to "educate yourself" (a particular favourite of mine - the internet is a big place, finding the same info you're referring to is not just looking for a needle in a haystack so much as looking for an individual piece of straw in a fiedl full of haystacks then being vilified for getting the "wrong" one. TBH, I think the tactics ARE the issue. Whether person A agrees with person B is not terribly important to me. Wha's important to me is that Person A & Person B treat one another with kindness, empathy & respect. Or if they can't manage that, tolerance would be an acceptable start. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Jan 6, 2022 23:00:52 GMT
I fully agree. I think 'cancelling' was done by the admins. Whilst this was heavy-handed (in my view) I don't believe it was ideological. I just think they shat themselves and/or the workload was too much. The names you mentioned were always eloquent, engaging and responded to specific points, rather than use straw man arguments. But then I'd say the same about many on the 'other' side - a lot of whom are here now. I genuinely can't recall anybody trying to stifle debate nor invoke bans - with the one possible exception towards a poster who has resurfaced here (which I feel was morally and legally acceptable). Just because you lose the debate doesn't mean you're cancelled. Just because you're outnumbered/outvoted on an issue doesn't mean you are deliberately ignored. There is no conspiracy. Huddersfield overwhelmingly returns a Labour candidate. Is it then so unusual to find a majority of leftwing leaning people on a Huddersfield Town forum? Of course not. It's not entryism nor a shadowy cabal. It's representative. Understand that and shake off the hang ups. Laughable. Grim was totally woke. Artysid answers every question with a question, then accuses others of dodging the question. It is easy to criticise the Tories, as I often do, but Starmer actually favours stricter lockdowns. Small mercies. I really don't buy into the left-right paradigm, but cancel culture is thinly veiled fascism, and it stems from the woke ... who are almost overwhelmingly left. I presume you're familiar with my posts (both on here & DATM). Would you describe me as "woke"? If so, how would you define "woke-ism"? If not, what is it about me that's different to Grim? Genuine questions BTW. I do wonder if "woke" means something different to one person than it does to another. FTR - I'm sure he won't like this or want to recognise it in himself but I'd suggest that Marcus shares a hell of a lot of traits with "the woke brigade". |
|
