How Woke is too Woke?

A bunch of liberals here, mostly all. Is there anything about our new woke culture that just seems over the top?

I've got a few, but I'll start with apparently anyone can interrupt any meeting at any time to do a "land acknowledgment" and everyone just has to go along with it. It's just like growing up in church, anyone can interrupt anything to ask to pray... Some things we do now are very much liberal church. What bothers you?

because liberals totally use phrases like "too woke"

woke is just bullshit stacked upon bullshit.

I'd say I'm a woke liberal voter who is just starting to think that a few things we are subscribing to are too much. There is very much an all or nothing opinion about liberal platforms right now. Cancel culture (started by conservatives in the 80s and 90s with their boycotts) is very much a thing, and not a great thing. As a liberal, I think we need to pump the brakes a little on a few platforms. So I guess my question is: as liberals, are there any liberal positions you think are too much?

Cultural appropriation.

Originally posted by truejedi
I'd say I'm a woke liberal voter who is just starting to think that a few things we are subscribing to are too much. There is very much an all or nothing opinion about liberal platforms right now. Cancel culture (started by conservatives in the 80s and 90s with their boycotts) is very much a thing, and not a great thing. As a liberal, I think we need to pump the brakes a little on a few platforms. So I guess my question is: as liberals, are there any liberal positions you think are too much? Giving any kind of power to stupid fat women.

Nope being woke is far better than the alternative.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Nope being woke is far better than the alternative.

I don't disagree with that, but that isn't the point. It isn't an all or nothing thing, and that's how it is being treated right now.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Nope being woke is far better than the alternative.

Fatphobic idealogy kind of does real harm to people.

Being fat simply isn't healthy. Maybe you can argue against unproductive shaming, acceptance is a step too far imo, and is literally killing people.

just seems like "how much acknowledgement of history and reality is too much"?

Originally posted by truejedi
I don't disagree with that, but that isn't the point. It isn't an all or nothing thing, and that's how it is being treated right now.

I mostly disagree. Woke was twisted and made into a dirty word by the Right. It's also largely not what people think it is.

Like Critical Race Theory, the Right literally twisted that into some nonsense monster and applied it to the Left, claiming it was being taught to kindergartners and that it meant "White people bad". Both lies.



But in the spirit of your thread, I find the refer to me as "they/them" to be silly. I'm fine if someone does not want to identify as a he/him or she/her, but you're not two people. Maybe "other" is a better choice. I'll still call someone "them/they" if they wish, cost me nothing, but I reserve the right to think it's silly.

Originally posted by Robtard
I mostly disagree. Woke was twisted and made into a dirty word by the Right. It's also largely not what people think it is.

Like Critical Race Theory, the Right literally twisted that into some nonsense monster and applied it to the Left, claiming it was being taught to kindergartners and that it meant "White people bad". Both lies.



But in the spirit of your thread, I find the refer to me as "they/them" to be silly. I'm fine if someone does not want to identify as a he/him or she/her, but you're not two people. Maybe "other" is a better choice. I'll still call someone "them/they" if they wish, cost me nothing, but I reserve the right to think it's silly.

The truth is, "woke" is just about pandering. Doesn't matter what the ideology actually is, what matters is how all the media pundits, politicians, and pressure groups spin things.


Take the Will Smith slapping Chris Rock thing? Why do you think they didn't have security escort him out for it?

Because they were in a "sell to target audience" mindset, that's why.

Originally posted by cdtm
The truth is, "woke" is just about pandering. Doesn't matter what the ideology actually is, what matters is how all the media pundits, politicians, and pressure groups spin things.


Take the Will Smith slapping Chris Rock thing? Why do you think they didn't have security escort him out for it?

Because they were in a "sell to target audience" mindset, that's why.

Wrong. Maybe what you think "woke" means here, but reality and you often don't play in the same sand box.

Reality: "Woke - aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"

Like acknowledging that this country still has an issue with systemic racism. eg where a Black person is more likely to get a harsher sentence than a White people for the same crime. Especially a Black man.

So I think land acknowledgements are silly. That's pretty much what sparked this thread.

My two cents on pronouns: I don't think they/them is silly, but I did hear someone say the other day that "at this point, I know people who are getting my pronouns wrong at this point don't care about gender inequality*. And that frustrated me a bit, because I'm only going to know someone's pronouns if I actually care about them. It's just an extra piece of information to remember about someone when there are plenty of people out there who I'm lucky to remember their names, if that makes sense...

It isn't that I don't care about gender inequality, I just don't care about YOU enough to care how you identify, if that makes sense. There are plenty of people I interact with everyday that I don't know well enough to care about what they identify as. I don't need to know and don't care one way or another. But by insisting on proper pronoun usage from people who are essentially strangers-- I just don't get it. I'm careful and happy to use proper pronouns with my friends, but as far as daily acquaintances that I don't know, and don't care to know, it seems like pronouns shouldn't come up. I hope I've explained that well. I don't know anything about you, why are pronouns important at that point? I've had people whose name I don't even remember correct me on pronouns... Like if I don't care enough to remember your name, why should I remember your pronouns? I'm always going to try, I'm not using incorrect pronouns on purpose, ever, but chances are if I get it wrong, it simply doesn't matter to me how you identify, so it never crosses my mind, I guess.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong. Maybe what you think "woke" means here, but reality and you often don't play in the same sand box.

Reality: "Woke - aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)"

Like acknowledging that this country still has an issue with systemic racism. eg where a Black person is more likely to get a harsher sentence than a White people for the same crime. Especially a Black man.

I'd say CRT is an example of not being too Woke. As I said, I'm liberal, I agree with all the things liberals agree with- I just think in just some cases we are starting to go to far, and we are making it impossible for honest discussion because of a very heavy handed "agree with everything, or be considered part of the problem."

Also I don't consider woke a dirty word, and consider myself woke and proud of it. I just think we need some introspection into some things.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cultural appropriation.

What do you mean by this?

https://mobile.twitter.com/michelleisawolf/status/1227323218706534401?lang=en

People who takes jokes seriously. This goes both ways.

Examples. People who thought Ricky Gervais' hosting of the Emmys was serious.

People who got offended at Issac Butterfield's joke about Christchurch

People who think Count Dankula should've been prosecuted.

People who now think Count Dankula is someone whose opinion matters because he got prosecuted for his shitty joke.

Originally posted by truejedi
My two cents on pronouns: I don't think they/them is silly, but I did hear someone say the other day that "at this point, I know people who are getting my pronouns wrong at this point don't care about gender inequality*. And that frustrated me a bit, because I'm only going to know someone's pronouns if I actually care about them. It's just an extra piece of information to remember about someone when there are plenty of people out there who I'm lucky to remember their names, if that makes sense...

It isn't that I don't care about gender inequality, I just don't care about YOU enough to care how you identify, if that makes sense. There are plenty of people I interact with everyday that I don't know well enough to care about what they identify as. I don't need to know and don't care one way or another. But by insisting on proper pronoun usage from people who are essentially strangers-- I just don't get it. I'm careful and happy to use proper pronouns with my friends, but as far as daily acquaintances that I don't know, and don't care to know, it seems like pronouns shouldn't come up. I hope I've explained that well. I don't know anything about you, why are pronouns important at that point? I've had people whose name I don't even remember correct me on pronouns... Like if I don't care enough to remember your name, why should I remember your pronouns? I'm always going to try, I'm not using incorrect pronouns on purpose, ever, but chances are if I get it wrong, it simply doesn't matter to me how you identify, so it never crosses my mind, I guess.

Despite the diligent efforts of some, I do not think asking or offering pronouns as a matter of course is going to catch on.

The vast majority of people, including binary transgender people, want to be gendered according to their expression, and do not feel the need to clarify their pronouns.

This issue is really only important to a tiny number of people whose gender is not immediately apparent from their appearance; primarily non-binary people, a population so tiny, that most people will never meet someone who is non-binary.

What I think will happen is that the onus will shift to the outliers to declare their pronouns upon meeting someone, which is where it should be.

If you do not use male or female pronouns, and you wish to be gendered correctly, then you have the responsibility to share your pronouns with others.

The rest of us do not need to declare our pronouns as a matter of course just to make you feel better about being different, which you are.

Originally posted by truejedi
What do you mean by this?

Here you go.

Originally posted by truejedi
So I think land acknowledgements are silly. That's pretty much what sparked this thread.

My two cents on pronouns: I don't think they/them is silly, but I did hear someone say the other day that "at this point, I know people who are getting my pronouns wrong at this point don't care about gender inequality*. And that frustrated me a bit, because I'm only going to know someone's pronouns if I actually care about them. It's just an extra piece of information to remember about someone when there are plenty of people out there who I'm lucky to remember their names, if that makes sense...

It isn't that I don't care about gender inequality, I just don't care about YOU enough to care how you identify, if that makes sense. There are plenty of people I interact with everyday that I don't know well enough to care about what they identify as. I don't need to know and don't care one way or another. But by insisting on proper pronoun usage from people who are essentially strangers-- I just don't get it. I'm careful and happy to use proper pronouns with my friends, but as far as daily acquaintances that I don't know, and don't care to know, it seems like pronouns shouldn't come up. I hope I've explained that well. I don't know anything about you, why are pronouns important at that point? I've had people whose name I don't even remember correct me on pronouns... Like if I don't care enough to remember your name, why should I remember your pronouns? I'm always going to try, I'm not using incorrect pronouns on purpose, ever, but chances are if I get it wrong, it simply doesn't matter to me how you identify, so it never crosses my mind, I guess.


Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me. If I go to a beach and there's a sign that reads "we acknowledge and respect that this beach historically belonged to *insert name* tribe", it's fine; I'm not going to start screaming "liberal wokeness!" like some unhinged Rightist.

In regards to pronouns, that's where intent comes in. If you legit just don't remember that someone is now a "she" when they were born a "he", especially someone you barely know, that's not a sin. If they attack you for it, that's their problem.

If you're doing it on purpose to be offensive to the person, then you're just a c*nt. eg The Far-Right hero Jordan Peterson made a lucrative career for himself because saying "she" instead of "he" to a given person was just too upsetting and off-putting to his feelings. When it reality saying "she" cost him nothing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Here you go.

No I know that it is: how are you applying it to this thread? You believe the Acknowledgment of cultural appropriation is too Woke? Do you mean all cultures, or any specifically?

If someone wants to know where the line is, just watch a Democratic Socialists of America convention online, and see how impossible it is for them to even communicate.

Originally posted by Robtard
Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me. Land acknowledgements are contextual. Maybe they don't serve a purpose in all contexts, but they're increasingly seen as important in Canada, where various land agreements (or lack thereof) form the legal context for rights and ownership.

Originally posted by truejedi
No I know that it is: how are you applying it to this thread? You believe the Acknowledgment of cultural appropriation is too Woke? Do you mean all cultures, or any specifically?

To quote Judy Funny, "If no one ever copied anyone else, we would all still be naked in caves and grunting at each other."

Culture is shared, not owned. The notion that any one group can claim anything as belonging exclusively to them is preposterous. As if everything that exists is not the result of syncretism anyway.

It is just a way for people who feel powerless to police people they perceive as powerful.

Originally posted by Robtard
Land acknowledgements are silly in of themselves, but they also don't bother me. If I go to a beach and there's a sign that reads "we acknowledge and respect that this beach historically belonged to *insert name* tribe", it's fine; I'm not going to start screaming "liberal wokeness!" like some unhinged Rightist..

I've been in meetings recently where someone keeps standing up to do land acknowledgements. "I want to take this opportunity to do a land acknowledgements...". Like ffs... Not again...

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
just seems like "how much acknowledgement of history and reality is too much"?


Like ignoring atrocities commited by groups that europeans committed atrocities against?


We have entire lectures dedicated to the problem of "whiteness". By itself, this isn't a problem.

What IS a problem is insisting EVERYTHING is someone elses fault, while accepting no criticisms for anything at all.

Originally posted by Smurph
Land acknowledgements are contextual. Maybe they don't serve a purpose in all contexts, but they're increasingly seen as important in Canada, where various land agreements (or lack thereof) form the legal context for rights and ownership.

I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean?

Originally posted by Smurph
Land acknowledgements are contextual. Maybe they don't serve a purpose in all contexts, but they're increasingly seen as important in Canada, where various land agreements (or lack thereof) form the legal context for rights and ownership.

Fair enough if there's a legalt/land rights aspect behind it in some instances

I was under the impression it was all empty "hope you feel good now" acknowledgements.

smurph is surtur.

doubt it

Smurph is intelligent and doesn't seem angry at life. So no.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fair enough if there's a legalt/land rights aspect behind it in some instances

I was under the impression it was all empty "hope you feel good now" acknowledgements. yeah, that's not an unfair take because there are no shortage of empty gesture land acknowledgements. But there are now a number of instances of First Nations successfully litigating land rights up to the Supreme Court of Canada based on pre-colonial territory.

Obviously it could be a totally different context in the US, or in other commonwealth nations.

Originally posted by Blakemore
smurph is surtur. lol

Thinking that a hijab is a symbol of women's empowerment is definitely an example of "too woke" (if that's such a thing. Not sure that's the label I would give it. I think the label that it was given was "regressive."

A head scarf on the other hand is a pretty nice garment and attractive, imo.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Thinking that a hijab is a symbol of women's empowerment is definitely an example of "too woke" (if that's such a thing. Not sure that's the label I would give it. I think the label that it was given was "regressive."

I'd probably just label that as goofy, if not ignorant.

It's like saying chains are a symbol of power on an enslaved person.

Originally posted by truejedi
I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean?


Sounds like he's saying rights are linked to property ownership. Like say, land owners get to vote.


Am Interested and would like to know more.

Originally posted by truejedi
I could definitely see them as important in a real estate deal where ownership of the land is being disputed. Is that what you mean? That's part of it. But other land rights flow from the nature of the agreement to cede the land from the First Nation to Canada (if any agreement was actually struck), with specific rights depending on the specific agreement. So Canada has various categories of "treaty territory" and also "unceded territory"

Among other things, land acknowledgments are a collective reminder that those treaties are still relevant, legally enforceable instruments

Can you give any examples? I'm a practical learner, abstract reasoning is helped with a few examples to work with.

Originally posted by cdtm
Can you give any examples? I'm a practical learner, abstract reasoning is helped with a few examples to work with. Sure. I grew up in Calgary, on Treaty 7 territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_7

So you'll see that the Blackfoot nation(s) have certain rights within the terms of that treaty. Much of it, I expect, is in dispute.

Now I live in Vancouver, which the city acknowledges (via one of those lane acknowledgments) is the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/land-acknowledgement.aspx

It's complicated and not my area, but the fact that everybody now acknowledges that the land was never ceded through treaty will change the legal requirements on how those nations need to be consulted at various points of land/water development.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Thinking that a hijab is a symbol of women's empowerment is definitely an example of "too woke" (if that's such a thing. Not sure that's the label I would give it. I think the label that it was given was "regressive."

Repression is freedom! Up is down!

Originally posted by Smurph
Sure. I grew up in Calgary, on Treaty 7 territory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_7

So you'll see that the Blackfoot nation(s) have certain rights within the terms of that treaty. Much of it, I expect, is in dispute.

Now I live in Vancouver, which the city acknowledges (via one of those lane acknowledgments) is the unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

https://vancouver.ca/people-programs/land-acknowledgement.aspx

It's complicated and not my area, but the fact that everybody now acknowledges that the land was never ceded through treaty will change the legal requirements on how those nations need to be consulted at various points of land/water development.

Much better, I think I get it now.

Am I right to assume a raw deal for nations with no treaty? Or do I have it backwards, and is lack of a treaty treated as theft, meaning room to renegotiate a better deal as a punitive measure to a nation who lost land without an agreement?

Depends. I doubt any Nation feels like it got a good deal, but they're each in a different legal context to make that argument.

There is no question the United States is guilty of genocide. I just don't think land acknowledgements are a useful thing in most contexts. My point is not that we should gloss over that very horrible set of actions ! More than 2 centuries of genocide and total war against a people.

The term woke as used in the lexicon of American society is mostly as an umbrella term where conservatives can take all of their strawman arguments into one term to invoke an emotional response of their base.

The idea of being too woke falls into that trap and logical fallacy of theirs. There will be people with extreme ideas but those ideas should be judged on the merit of the idea itself.

Originally posted by Newjak
The term woke as used in the lexicon of American society is mostly as an umbrella term where conservatives can take all of their strawman arguments into one term to invoke an emotional response of their base.

The idea of being too woke falls into that trap and logical fallacy of theirs. There will be people with extreme ideas but those ideas should be judged on the merit of the idea itself.

No, I agree.

Which isn't to say I don't believe woke exists. Personal examples of what I consider wokeness:

Laws in European states that have actual prison time for refusing to honor gender pronouns.

I'm sorry, but I will always consider imprisonment for "hate speech" as an extreme unwarranted response. No one has died from being offended.

Originally posted by cdtm


Laws in European states that have actual prison time for refusing to honor gender pronouns.

I'm sure you'll be providing those "states" any minute now.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I'm sure you'll be providing those "states" any minute now.


Germany is one such state.

I believe Australia is another.

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/new-transgender-law-australia-make-illegal-call-individuals-120627395.html

And maybe I forgot Australia isn't strictly European, but always considered them as a European nation in spirit given their influences.

Btw Jadan, maybe lose the attitude. Not every argument warrants a flippant response, it gets old.

So yeah, making proper pronoun use a legal thing would definitely be an example of much too Woke, imo.

So nobody's been jailed for it? Imagine my surprise.

Originally posted by cdtm
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/new-transgender-law-australia-make-illegal-call-individuals-120627395.html

And maybe I forgot Australia isn't strictly European, but always considered them as a European nation in spirit given their influences.

Maybe you got confused with names. They can be difficult

2hOLm_k6eCs

What about the UK malicious communications act? This was passed in 1988, and specifically targets delivering messages designed to cause distress or emotional harm, on threat of a maximum two years imprisonment.

Essentially, one can be imprisoned for mean social media posts.

Originally posted by cdtm
What about the UK malicious communications act? This was passed in 1988, and specifically targets delivering messages designed to cause distress or emotional harm, on threat of a maximum two years imprisonment.

Essentially, one can be imprisoned for mean social media posts.

Well if it's been around for 34 years I'm sure you'll find plenty examples of people being imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Well if it's been around for 34 years I'm sure you'll find plenty examples of people being imprisoned for using the wrong pronouns.

The pronouns wasn't really the point though. Imprisonment for mean words is.

Originally posted by cdtm
The pronouns wasn't really the point though. Imprisonment for mean words is.

Originally posted by cdtm
Germany is one such state.

I believe Australia is another.

TIL: cdtm's "beliefs" >>> reality

Originally posted by Robtard
TIL: cdtm's "beliefs" >>> reality

I literally posted a citation for Australia though.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0


The law and the threat posed by said laws aren't good enough?

Is Buck vs Bell precedent any less of an outrage if only one woman was chemically castrated? Would it matter if no one was fixed, if they said legally you can be?

Originally posted by Robtard
TIL: cdtm's "beliefs" >>> reality

suddenly the entire continent of australia rose from the ocean and flew northwest to crash land into Europe, crushing and killing hundreds of millions of unsuspecting europeans. thats the power of trumper feefees

Post about laws and punishments of imprisonment for using wrong pronouns in European states. Cites an example from Australia (not Europe) that "could" make it illegal to use "he" and "she" but no-one's been imprisoned or even prosecuted with it.
Then cites a law in Britain that's existed for 30+ years that has nothing to do with misgendering people and no one has been prosecuted using that law for misgendering someone. Then can't provide a single example anywhere in the world, let alone Europe, of anyone being imprisoned for using wrong pronouns.

Imagine your prime example of things becoming "too woke" being entirely fictional.

Originally posted by cdtm
I literally posted a citation for Australia though.

And Australia is literally not in Europe

And that story was literally from 2018

And literally no one was arrested in Australia for using the wrong pronoun against a trans person

And in 2021 the Australian Senate literally voted against making gender neutral language a thing in official materials

And maybe you should literally just stop making things up and going with them as if they were facts

Damn glad I have CDTM on ignore

As far as I can tell, "woke" doesn't actually mean anything. Maybe at one time it did, but now it's just a new overused blanket term used by the right to complain about pretty much anything in media that they don't like (black characters, gay characters, characters who are in general liberal in some way or don't masterbate to the american flag).

It's the new "snowflake". Or "fake news".

I thought it was a meme used to describe an SJW who wants a black/gay/trans/female/asian whatever in some media for no reason other than diversity.

Originally posted by Blakemore
I thought it was a meme used to describe an SJW who wants a black/gay/trans/female/asian whatever in some media for no reason other than diversity.

Diversity for diversities sake is part of it.


Really it's mostly the smug enlightened attitude and condescension towards people who are ignorant. Ideology changes often, it's natural many won't even understand the latest trends in pronoun usage and such, yet all get treated like David Duke.

Originally posted by BackFire
As far as I can tell, "woke" doesn't actually mean anything.

white americans who are aware of the real history of america. it's really just as simple is acknowledgement of factual stuff like "the tulsa massacre happened", without worrying that the precious white children will all lose their f*cking minds and have to live with chronic depression over it, as trumpers love to assert. this thread is pure bullshit

what it really is: how liberal is too liberal, how progressive is too progressive... or another title like that which is honest and non-manipulative/gaslighty

You guys are making too much of the title. Bashar, yes, that's exactly what I meant. Woke isn't an insult to a liberal, even though conservatives think it is. It's kinda funny that way. We like being called woke at the exact same time they think they are insulting us by calling us that.

It's like using socialist as an insult, when its actually a really good thing.

Nah, it's an insult because socialism just doesn't work, every time it's been tried you get a tyranny.

Originally posted by cdtm
Nah, it's an insult because socialism just doesn't work, every time it's been tried you get a tyranny.

That's absolutely not true. Look at the EU, look at the Baltics. Socialism is great. You have dictators who promised socialism and lied in the exact same way that trump promised to make America great again, and then tried his best to derail democracy... Those liars aren't socialism, just liars.

I'm not defending cdtm's sentiment, but the EU is not socialist as a matter of fact. A society can't be socialist and remain capitalist, that's oxymoronic.

Originally posted by NewGuy01
I'm not defending cdtm's sentiment, but the EU is not socialist as a matter of fact. A society can't be socialist and remain capitalist, that's oxymoronic.

If it's a pure socialist state, sure, I can see that. They definitely have socialist tenets when compared to the u.s. though.

I'd also say I prefer pure socialism to pure capitalism any day. Capitalism only works with socialist minded regulation.

Originally posted by truejedi
If it's a pure socialist state, sure, I can see that. They definitely have socialist tenets when compared to the u.s. though.
No, they don't, but I admit it's not worth arguing over. Conservatives intentionally misuse the term in order to discredit good policy, and I guess liberals have decided they're better off owning it than denying it. Now both sides are talking about the same things equally erroneously, so your point stands. Whether it's socialism or not, conservatives can't seem to help but hate good things, generally.

The funny thing about socialism is there are 2 aspects people conveniently forget. 1. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. Any country which has attempted to practice socialism has been absolutely hammered with sanctions by the most powerful economies on the planet because they refused to let those powers exploit their resources or kicked out corrupt puppet governments that served those powers.
2. The people who spread the message that socialism was bad were billionaire media barons who were the ones who stood to lose out if socialism were to take hold in their own countries.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The funny thing about socialism is there are 2 aspects people conveniently forget. 1. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. Any country which has attempted to practice socialism has been absolutely hammered with sanctions by the most powerful economies on the planet because they refused to let those powers exploit their resources or kicked out corrupt puppet governments that served those powers.
2. The people who spread the message that socialism was bad were billionaire media barons who were the ones who stood to lose out if socialism were to take hold in their own countries. Yes, but Castro, Khomeini, Kim Il Sung, Diem and so many other communist regimes did have economic ties with Russia and China.

I mean, Eisenhower's speech about the military industrial complex is about the Soviet Union as much as it is about rich media barons; Kennedy's speech about secret societies also applies to both.

Of course communism not equal to socialism either.

And you completely missed the fact you just proved why people are against socialism.

"Any country which has attempted to practice socialism has been absolutely hammered with sanctions by the most powerful economies on the planet because they refused to let those powers exploit their resources or kicked out corrupt puppet governments that served those powers."

And my point was this could apply to the US and Europe as much as it could to Russia and China so what even is your point? Failed system is fail?

Originally posted by Blakemore
And you completely missed the fact you just proved why people are against socialism.

"Any country which has attempted to practice socialism has been absolutely hammered with sanctions by the most powerful economies on the planet because they refused to let those powers exploit their resources or kicked out corrupt puppet governments that served those powers."

And my point was this could apply to the US and Europe as much as it could to Russia and China so what even is your point? Failed system is fail?

People are against socialism because for decades, billionaire media barons and their corporate conspirators have told them socialism is bad for them when in reality it's bad for the corporate and media billionaires. That's how propaganda works.

Right, it had nothing to do with their economic ties with the Soviet Union and China.

Originally posted by Blakemore
Right, it had nothing to do with their economic ties with the Soviet Union and China.

Who were Cuba and Iran allied with before their governments were kicked out for going against their own people's interests and serving a foreign power? I'll give you a clue...it wasn't the Soviet Union or China.

Here's a nice place to start your education about what I'm talking about

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_propaganda

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Who were Cuba and Iran allied with before their governments were kicked out for going against their own people's interests and serving a foreign power? I'll give you a clue...it wasn't the Soviet Union or China. Okay, I'll give you that.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Here's a nice place to start your education about what I'm talking about

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_propaganda

Conspiracy theory belongs in the conspiracy theory forum.

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Who were Cuba and Iran allied with before their governments were kicked out for going against their own people's interests and serving a foreign power? I'll give you a clue...it wasn't the Soviet Union or China. A bit of a sweeping statement, no? Iran had a major socialist party in the 40s that collapsed after it became clear that it's "socialist" policy was largely just pro-Soviet policy (ie granting Soviet control of Iranian oil out of political solidarity).

Turns out that propaganda is useful for capitalists and non-capitalists alike.

Originally posted by Smurph
A bit of a sweeping statement, no? Iran had a major socialist party in the 40s that collapsed after it became clear that it's "socialist" policy was largely just pro-Soviet policy (ie granting Soviet control of Iranian oil out of political solidarity).

Turns out that propaganda is useful for capitalists and non-capitalists alike.

No. Because the Shah regime was installed by a coup orchestrated by the C.I.A. in order to install a regime that would give access to Iranian oil to western companies.

Right. It just, clearly, wasn't only the west that was intervening in Iranian politics in order to control Iran's resources. The Soviets just dressed it up as socialism.

I like you, Smurph.

Originally posted by Smurph
Right. It just, clearly, wasn't only the west that was intervening in Iranian politics in order to control Iran's resources. The Soviets just dressed it up as socialism.

Yeah. Except the Socialist party you're referring to in the 40s were tiny and had zero political influence.

VIU8WAFixWs

Eww, Jordan Peterson, gross

The US and USSR ****ed the world after WWII in their power plays across the globe, one said it was to bring freedom and democracy and all the good that comes with that, the other said it was to bring freedom and communism and all the good that comes with that.

Both just wanted resources and/or a chess piece on the world table.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US and USSR ****ed the world after WWII in their power plays across the globe, one said it was to bring freedom and democracy and all the good that comes with that, the other said it was to bring freedom and communism and all the good that comes with that.

Both just wanted resources and/or a chess piece on the world table. yeah. Before WW2 & 1 it was mostly France, Italy, Russia, Germany, Spain, Belgium, The Netherlands, Portugal, Austria-Hungary, Japan, Saudi Arabia, China, the Ottamans and Great Britain doing that.

Siam, Afghanistan, Romania, Bulgaria and Ethiopia were merely buffer zones between empires.

Then came WW2. Soviet Russia and Free Country U.S.A. played a game of risk, which ended when U.S.A. created Al Qaeda... lol, the irony.

Originally posted by Smurph
Eww, Jordan Peterson, gross How did I miss this zinger! Bingo Smurph, Bingo!

Woke is good! Seriously, as Elvis Costello sang, "what's so funny about peace, love and understanding?"

White supremacy is in the very air you breathe, like a poisonous fume.

Honestly, the "gender pay gap in movies/tv" morons.

A bit of hoopla was made over Pedro Pascal's $600,000 per episode pay rate vs Bella Ramsey's $70,000 per episode in The Last of Us with the implication that it's unfair since both are the protagonists.

As if gender was actually cause of the disparity, and not, you know, the fact that Bella isn't very well known.

If they want to complain, then complain that the actors and crew are likely underpaid compared to the revenue the show generates for the corporate entities who actually own the shit...

Bella Ramsey is non-binary. Can't be a gender pay gap if there's no gender. KAPOOOWWW!

Originally posted by StyleTime
Honestly, the "gender pay gap in movies/tv" morons.

A bit of hoopla was made over Pedro Pascal's $600,000 per episode pay rate vs Bella Ramsey's $70,000 per episode in The Last of Us with the implication that it's unfair since both are the protagonists.

As if gender was actually cause of the disparity, and not, you know, the fact that Bella isn't very well known.

If they want to complain, then complain that the actors and crew are likely underpaid compared to the revenue the show generates for the corporate entities who actually own the shit...
I suppose I should add "reportedly" to those numbers, to be safe.
Originally posted by Jaden_3.0
Bella Ramsey is non-binary. Can't be a gender pay gap if there's no gender. KAPOOOWWW!
True. 5D chess.