How do you end 'cancel culture'?

[Senethro]

The context is: Berz throws everything from the past 2 centuries in the hope that something sticks. He doesn’t care about any of the issues, only who is doing them. Hence how he can apparently be on both sides of an issue depending on where and when it is.

 

[Patine]

Who's claiming the moral high ground, and with regards to what are they claiming it? What's the context here?

The true moral high ground is to stand against both engines of evil that collectively run the United States and demand true choice, accountability, transparency, and justice at the time (if one were an American, not from Commonwealth countries like the two of us). The Democratic Party of the United States shares with the Republican Party of United States guilt and complacency with the MAJORITY of the high crimes, corruption, treason, betrayal of the trust, and abuse of power against the American people, nation, and Constitution and kowtowing to plutocratic masters over their own constituents that make up the great offenses by the United States Government as a whole. The areas where they differ - which are in great contention at the moment - the Democratic Party of the United States has, in truth, when they actually get around to addressing these issues, been slow to act, a disappointment of hope, incompetent, or creating unworkable Frankenstein's Monster jaberwockie compromises for that don't go nearly far enough (Obamacare as an example of the last one). I see no "clear choice," or "moral high ground," or "good guy-bad guy," scenario between these parties - just the difference between the well-dressed, genteel, urbane, good-mannered, and "honourable," Sicilian Mafia vs. the in the open horrible, excessive, flamboyantly monstrous, personally extravagant, vengeful, vicious, but strangely folk heroes to many uneducated rural folk Mexican Drug Cartels. That's moreso an analogy of the difference I see between the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

I could assume that you are racist towards white people with some of your commentary, very much when you use the term white privilege you know well and truly that it's said in a derogatory way regardless whether the term has any veracity or not, you're not saying it in a way to enlighten white people as to why you think they are privileged, you only need to look at in which context its being used especially on social media to understand that it most certainly is being used in a derogatory manner. Imagine telling a poor white person who is living day to day as they watch their weekly pay check disappear in a couple of days just to buy food and pay bills that they are privileged.

She seems to fully buy into the myth that it isn't racism if it's said against White people - that racism against doesn't and is impossible by definition - and many other bizarre myths and fairy tales of that sort kicking around social media nowadays.

 

[Gorbles]

The true moral high ground is to stand against both engines of evil that collectively run the United States and demand true choice, accountability, transparency, and justice at the time (if one were an American, not from Commonwealth countries like the two of us). The Democratic Party of the United States shares with the Republican Party of United States guilt and complacency with the MAJORITY of the high crimes, corruption, treason, betrayal of the trust, and abuse of power against the American people, nation, and Constitution and kowtowing to plutocratic masters over their own constituents that make up the great offenses by the United States Government as a whole. The areas where they differ - which are in great contention at the moment - the Democratic Party of the United States has, in truth, when they actually get around to addressing these issues, been slow to act, a disappointment of hope, incompetent, or creating unworkable Frankenstein's Monster jaberwockie compromises for that don't go nearly far enough (Obamacare as an example of the last one). I see no "clear choice," or "moral high ground," or "good guy-bad guy," scenario between these parties - just the difference between the well-dressed, genteel, urbane, good-mannered, and "honourable," Sicilian Mafia vs. the in the open horrible, excessive, flamboyantly monstrous, personally extravagant, vengeful, vicious, but strangely folk heroes to many uneducated rural folk Mexican Drug Cartels. That's moreso an analogy of the difference I see between the Democrats and Republicans, respectively.

I was asking Berserker, but thanks for once again pointing out that there are no good choices in the US political system. I respectfully disagree with your inference that they are equally as-bad, though.

She seems to fully buy into the myth that it isn't racism if it's said against White people - that racism against doesn't and is impossible by definition - and many other bizarre myths and fairy tales of that sort kicking around social media nowadays.

You might want to read a page or so on institutional racism. It overwhelmingly manifests against ethnic, cultural, and other such minorities.

This doesn't preclude institutional racism against white folks in other parts of the world, but we're not discussing other parts of the world. The discussion is overwhelmingly US-centric, with some examples from other parts of the Western world. Please recognise the context when debating something, instead of dismissing it as a "myth".

Additionally, you said "seems to" - that's an assumption you made. You've got to be careful on those.

 

[Patine]

I was asking Berserker, but thanks for once again pointing out that there are no good choices in the US political system. I respectfully disagree with your inference that they are equally as-bad, though.

I didn't say "as bad." But, by definition, a choice between "two evil," is still, by definition, choosing and "evil," not a "good by default." It's amazing how many people miss that simple notion. One cannot preach a "moral high ground," for choice in that kind of electoral environment, so I really wish people would just stop trying. True progress, advancement, betterment, and justice will only have a CHANCE of coming to the United States when the corrupt Duopoly has been removed from it's position of corrupt power. Until then, the Democratic Party gives Social Progressives disingenuous and parsimonious crumbs from their table to support them as the criminals, crooks, and traitors at the ballot box over the Republicans, because there is no "good," party that is really serious about all-out embracing the reforms Social Progressives want with any clip of expediency or any real seriousness.

You might want to read a page or so on institutional racism. It overwhelmingly manifests against ethnic, cultural, and other such minorities.

This doesn't preclude institutional racism against white folks in other parts of the world, but we're not discussing other parts of the world. The discussion is overwhelmingly US-centric, with some examples from other parts of the Western world. Please recognise the context when debating something, instead of dismissing it as a "myth".

Additionally, you said "seems to" - that's an assumption you made. You've got to be careful on those.

That article you linked is irrelevant because I didn't use the word - drum roll please - "institutional." And the lack of me using that word shows you putting that word in my mouth (a really tiresome and disingenuous and disgusting tactic so many here like to do to me to pull a chicanery of making me say something I am not), and it makes your whole rebuttal in the post above a presumptuous and embarrassing blunder with absolutely no substance but a contrived phantom dependent on a word I didn't use.

 

[Angst]

I didn't say "as bad." But, by definition, a choice between "two evil," is still, by definition, choosing and "evil," not a "good by default." It's amazing how many people miss that simple notion. One cannot preach a "moral high ground," for choice in that kind of electoral environment, so I really wish people would just stop trying. True progress, advancement, betterment, and justice will only have a CHANCE of coming to the United States when the corrupt Duopoly has been removed from it's position of corrupt power. Until then, the Democratic Party gives Social Progressives disingenuous and parsimonious crumbs from their table to support them as the criminals, crooks, and traitors at the ballot box over the Republicans, because there is no "good," party that is really serious about all-out embracing the reforms Social Progressives want with any clip of expediency or any real seriousness.

It's actually striking how much noncentrists in the US agree on this when it comes down to it. The people that like state power are abhored by the private corruption of it. The people that don't like state power are abhored by the corruption that accepts private bribes. In the end, you all hate your current government.

 

[Crezth]

It's actually striking how much noncentrists in the US agree on this when it comes down to it. The people that like state power are abhored by the private corruption of it. The people that don't like state power are abhored by the corruption that accepts private bribes. In the end, you all hate your current government.

Yeah, we all hate it but we’re stuck with it. You’ll see someone go on a long rant about how both sides are corrupt and when the chips are down they’ll go “But at least Trump is saving us from the SJWs, the Black supremacists, and the communists,” or “Trump isn’t part of the system,” or “Biden may be a lying sex pest but at least he isn’t an incompetent buffoon like Trump.” And then nothing changes.

Or they identify these problems and go “and that’s why you should vote Libertarian,” because the problem is social security.

 

[Gorbles]

That article you linked is irrelevant because I didn't use the word - drum roll please - "institutional." And the lack of me using that word shows you putting that word in my mouth (a really tiresome and disingenuous and disgusting tactic so many here like to do to me to pull a chicanery of making me say something I am not), and it makes your whole rebuttal in the post above a presumptuous and embarrassing blunder with absolutely no substance but a contrived phantom dependent on a word I didn't use.

The article isn't irrelevant because you put words into another poster's mouth and assumed what kind of racism they were talking about. And then you have the nerve to complain that I did the same to you

 

[Patine]

Yeah, we all hate it but we’re stuck with it. You’ll see someone go on a long rant about how both sides are corrupt and when the chips are down they’ll go “But at least Trump is saving us from the SJWs, the Black supremacists, and the communists,” or “Trump isn’t part of the system,” or “Biden may be a lying sex pest but at least he isn’t an incompetent buffoon like Trump.” And then nothing changes.

Or they identify these problems and go “and that’s why you should vote Libertarian,” because the problem is social security.

Stuck with it. Only because of spineless complacency and resignation, and allowing yourselves to be beaten down like abused dogs. People in much more overtly authoritarian, corrupt, and power abusive countries have brought down governments that also had to go, at time with out full-blown armed revolutions, civil wars, or insurgencies - like the Fall of the Warsaw Pact Governments and the Soviet Satellite Regime in Mongolia, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, and the Carnation, Rose, and Tulip Revolutions, as well as the ANC staredown of the National Party of South African in the 1987-1994 period. Is there, thus, any reason why the two engines of high crime, tyranny, corruption, lies, and abuse of power MUST be tolerated, supported, and kept completely unaccountable and above all justice and consequence for their failing of the people and nation and their abdicating, effectively, of their mandates of trust and authority, by the people of the United States. Why do the American people owe the seditious Duopoly, as a whole, that loyalty and continued support and tolerance, when the only reciprocal feeling from the Duopoly is taking the American voters' support for granted and with a sense of entitlement. The American people deserve better, should demand better, and need be, should take better - because the United States, as a nation, is Constitutionally empowered by "the People of the United States of America," NOT the Duopoly Parties and their cronies.

 

[Patine]

The article isn't irrelevant because you put words into another poster's mouth and assumed what kind of racism they were talking about. And then you have the nerve to complain that I did the same to you

@Cloud_Strife has made quite a few statements about White people that indeed come across as being stereotyping, absolutist, and racist. But not institutionally so - just on a personal level. But personal racist beliefs are still racist, even if they aren't institutional. Again, another wet noodle and feeble response that accomplishes nothing but making you look clueless and desperate to dig up some sort of counterpoint.

 

[Gorbles]

@Cloud_Strife has made quite a few statements about White people that indeed come across as being stereotyping, absolutist, and racist. But not institutionally so - just on a personal level. But personal racist beliefs are still racist, even if they aren't institutional. Again, another wet noodle and feeble response that accomplishes nothing but making you look clueless and desperate to dig up some sort of counterpoint.

My point was you made a poor assumption. No amount of comparing my posts to noodles will change that.

Your claim was that Cloud presumably meant racism at a personal, individual level (when discussing racist acts towards white folk). This claim has not been substantiated. It isn't even what Cloud was talking about.

 

[Patine]

My point was you made a poor assumption. No amount of comparing my posts to noodles will change that.

Your claim was that Cloud presumably meant racism at a personal, individual level (when discussing racist acts towards white folk). This claim has not been substantiated. It isn't even what Cloud was talking about.

I wasn't talking about "acts." I was talking about "attitudes," from the start. I don't know who was talking about "acts," - at least before you presumptuous interjected the idea, and claimed, imperiously, it WAS the discussion.

 

[Gorbles]

I wasn't talking about "acts." I was talking about "attitudes," from the start. I don't know who was talking about "acts," - at least before you presumptuous interjected the idea, and claimed, imperiously, it WAS the discussion.

I never said "acts".

Arguably, you put words into Cloud's mouth. At best, you assumed things about her character which are unfair, and indeed hurtful.

Why? Why are your assumptions; your inferences, justified? What makes you immune to the posting etiquette (not the rules, to be clear) that you so often, and at length, call people out for?

 

[Patine]

I never said "acts".

Arguably, you put words into Cloud's mouth. At best, you assumed things about her character which are unfair, and indeed hurtful.

Why? Why are your assumptions; your inferences, justified? What makes you immune to the posting etiquette (not the rules, to be clear) that you so often, and at length, call people out for?

I could ask the same of you, her, and many others I spar with commonly.

 

[Crezth]

Stuck with it. Only because of spineless complacency and resignation, and allowing yourselves to be beaten down like abused dogs. People in much more overtly authoritarian, corrupt, and power abusive countries have brought down governments that also had to go, at time with out full-blown armed revolutions, civil wars, or insurgencies - like the Fall of the Warsaw Pact Governments and the Soviet Satellite Regime in Mongolia, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia, and the Carnation, Rose, and Tulip Revolutions, as well as the ANC staredown of the National Party of South African in the 1987-1994 period. Is there, thus, any reason why the two engines of high crime, tyranny, corruption, lies, and abuse of power MUST be tolerated, supported, and kept completely unaccountable and above all justice and consequence for their failing of the people and nation and their abdicating, effectively, of their mandates of trust and authority, by the people of the United States. Why do the American people owe the seditious Duopoly, as a whole, that loyalty and continued support and tolerance, when the only reciprocal feeling from the Duopoly is taking the American voters' support for granted and with a sense of entitlement. The American people deserve better, should demand better, and need be, should take better - because the United States, as a nation, is Constitutionally empowered by "the People of the United States of America," NOT the Duopoly Parties and their cronies.

You know the genius system that lets the American government pit the working class against each other is called white supremacy. Racism. The myth the workers are separate. It is this myth that lets the US government suppress the Black population with white complacency. So yeah Cloud has a goddamn great reason to be mentioning racism is still a serious issue.

 

[Gorbles]

I could ask the same of you, her, and many others I spar with commonly.

You could, in the event that I did. Do so next time. However, this isn't that time, and you haven't answered the question.

 

[Patine]

You know the genius system that lets the American government pit the working class against each other is called white supremacy. Racism. The myth the workers are separate. It is this myth that lets the US government suppress the Black population with white complacency. So yeah Cloud has a goddamn great reason to be mentioning racism is still a serious issue.

The myth is that race is the only, or even biggest, factor in that dystopian scheme, and that myopically focusing on race is going to propose all the solutions. While race is A factors (though as much so as 50 years and more, previously), there's a LOT more to the Machiavellian power came than that - far more factors at play. Simplifying it to one specific factor and declaring that IS the issue, and the solution is along the lines of going with that that, is not going to solve the broader problem in the long-term. But over-simplification of all socio-political problems and divides, nowadays, is all the rage and fad in the zeitgeist - but that mentality will almost certainly have a tragic end in the long-term - oh, and we're discouraged in this zeitgeist from thinking in the long-term, as well - only short-term victories, regardless of cost or damage (including damage to those not deserving it or one's own cause) are to be pursued or celebrated.

 

[Patine]

You could, in the event that I did. Do so next time. However, this isn't that time, and you haven't answered the question.

You are just unbelievably disingenuous, pompous, and hypocritical. I can't deal with your self-indulgent and arrogant BS right now (and the fact you NEVER criticize or chasten your ideological ALLIES on these forums, even when they go way out of line and say some really questionable and stupid, and you'll even staunchly defend them, but those who are socio-political opponents - are even alleged to be, so - get criticized harshly all the time, even when you have to contrive and disingenuously struggle to keep desperate and flimsy attacks - shows you have no true independent point of view, no true conviction or ethics, and that you - like so many today in this grim, dystopian, era where civilization is on it's death spiral because of such socio-political idiocy and divisiveness across the board - are just a socio-political shill and drone from your "side," (firmly believing, like all such people, there's only "two sides,") and not veering from your script. It gets tiresome talking to socio-political zombies as opposed to people who think for themselves).

 

[GenMarshall]

The myth is that race is the only, or even biggest, factor in that dystopian scheme, and that myopically focusing on race is going to propose all the solutions.

News flash, it’s not a myth when you’re looking at it sociology and outside of law (whatever discipline you’d call studying law).

You are just unbelievably disingenuous, pompous, and hypocritical. I can't deal with your self-indulgent and arrogant BS right now.

Project onto others much?

 

[Patine]

News flash, it’s not a myth when you’re looking at it sociology and outside of law (whatever discipline you’d call studying law).

So, the post that @Crezth made, saying that racism is THE vehicle of power used by authoritarian government, and THE issue of concern in the U.S. around socio-political, and, by the wording, the only meaningful one, is absolutely correct, and my counterpoint that racism, which IS a notable issue, but one of many issues, one of many vehicles of power by authoritarian government, and one of many separate issues that must be addressed, is false? I wasn't denying racism being a significant issue. You and @Crezth were SEEMINGLY, by the presentation of your posts, denying anything else being a relevant issue. The ball is now in your court.

 

[Crezth]

It is what I said it was and not whatever wild extrapolations you choose to make.