How Far Will the Woke Mob Go?

[Patine]

I accuse others of ad hominem attacks? Nope, I couldn't care less. I would only remark on the content of what they say, not the manner in which it's said. Crying for mommy because someone else wasn't nice is playground behaviour.

"Crying for mommy?" You must be thinking of a different poster entirely. But since, as I pointed out before, you're obviously only here for mean-spirited entertainment from what must be a stiflingly dull life, and not actually to make any points of validity or worth, individual posters and their traits and styles probably don't mean much to you, and you don't care when you a fool of yourself by making errors in that regard (and a lot of others) with incredible regularly - because, as I said, you're obviously not here to say anything or make any points of meaning.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I accuse others of ad hominem attacks? Nope, I couldn't care less. I would only remark on the content of what they say, not the manner in which it's said. Crying for mommy because someone else wasn't nice is playground behaviour.

TMIT doesn't mind stating his opinions and views, he just doesn't like it when you tell him the implications of said views, specifically on those that'd be on the recieving end, nevermind his genuinely unsettling stance that rights for minorities should only exist if and when they intersect with the majority.

 

[Patine]

specifically on those that'd be on the recieving end, nevermind his genuinely unsettling stance that rights for minorities should only exist if and when they intersect with the majority.

I have never said that. I DID say that I dream of a glorious future, one day, where will legal, economic, political distinctions by demographics would be irrelevant because a social equality would have been achieved - a shining endpoint goal to work towards. I also said that politics and advocacy that focused on absolutist demographic thinking as it's central theme - be it far left or far right - is dangerous, counter-productive, toxic, and socially destructive. But I have never ONCE made the claim you just accused me of, and that IS slander. I will await forthwith your retraction of your false and incendiary accusation and humble, public apology on this thread.

 

[aelf]

"Crying for mommy?" You must be thinking of a different poster entirely. But since, as I pointed out before, you're obviously only here for mean-spirited entertainment from what must be a stiflingly dull life, and not actually to make any points of validity or worth, individual posters and their traits and styles probably don't mean much to you, and you don't care when you a fool of yourself by making errors in that regard (and a lot of others) with incredible regularly - because, as I said, you're obviously not here to say anything or make any points of meaning.

Sure, and I'm sure what you say is widely respected and regarded as meaningful here.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I have never said that. I DID say that I dream of a glorious future, one day, where will legal, economic, political distinctions by demographics would be irrelevant because a social equality would have been achieved - a shining endpoint goal to work towards. I also said that politics and advocacy that focused on absolutist demographic thinking as it's central theme - be it far left or far right - is dangerous, counter-productive, toxic, and socially destructive. But I have never ONCE made the claim you just accused me of, and that IS slander. I will await forthwith your retraction of your false and incendiary accusation and humble, public apology on this thread.

Did i say you? No i did not. Maybe you should bother to actually read the entirety of what was said.

 

[Patine]

Sure, and I'm sure what you say is widely respected and regarded as meaningful here.

I have never made such a claim, no. But at least I speak with conviction of a certain ideological and world view, and one that is not just a "down-the-line, unthinking, drone support for some bloc ideology," and I'm fully willing and able to call out flawed, faulted, failed, unworkable, corrupt, disingenuous, and repugnant aspects of ALL ideological blocs, because I am beholden to none by unconditional and unquestioning loyalty. You seem to seriously and sincerely believe in nothing, but just cynically deadpan a stereotyped modern Progressive (to the degree that you've actually hoodwinked a lot of "likes," from @Cloud_Strife and @Gorbles - though a lot of that may be due to your caustic insults to people they disagree with and oppose than any convincing act of rhetoric you may make).

 

[Patine]

Did i say you? No i did not. Maybe you should bother to actually read the entirety of what was said.

It looked like TMIT (who, indeed, is likely another poster, now that I see the grammar) was originally appearing to be one of one those Internet acronyms that I've just lost track of them all, and since I was the last person the poster you addressed posted to, I concluded you were referring to me. I admit, I was in error (unlike some posters on this thread, I'm capable of admitting that from time to time if it's actually true.

 

[aelf]

I have never made such a claim, no. But at least I speak with conviction of a certain ideological and world view, and one that is not just a "down-the-line, unthinking, drone support for some bloc ideology," and I'm fully willing and able to call out flawed, faulted, failed, unworkable, corrupt, disingenuous, and repugnant aspects of ALL ideological blocs, because I am beholden to none by unconditional and unquestioning loyalty. You seem to seriously and sincerely believe in nothing, but just cynically deadpan a stereotyped modern Progressive (to the degree that you've actually hoodwinked a lot of "likes," from @Cloud_Strife and @Gorbles - though a lot of that may be due to your caustic insults to people they disagree with and oppose than any convincing act of rhetoric you may make).

Wow, this comes across as really bitter. Such conviction, much meaning.

 

[Patine]

Wow, this comes across as really bitter. Such conviction, much meaning.

Take your flippant sarcasm to someone who'll appreciate it. I'm sick of dealing with apathetic nihilists who make stupid jokes (hint - jokes are supposed to be "funny," - you fail there, too) and pretend to be relevant.

 

[Gorbles]

I have never made such a claim, no. But at least I speak with conviction of a certain ideological and world view, and one that is not just a "down-the-line, unthinking, drone support for some bloc ideology," and I'm fully willing and able to call out flawed, faulted, failed, unworkable, corrupt, disingenuous, and repugnant aspects of ALL ideological blocs, because I am beholden to none by unconditional and unquestioning loyalty. You seem to seriously and sincerely believe in nothing, but just cynically deadpan a stereotyped modern Progressive (to the degree that you've actually hoodwinked a lot of "likes," from @Cloud_Strife and @Gorbles - though a lot of that may be due to your caustic insults to people they disagree with and oppose than any convincing act of rhetoric you may make).

You compared (alleged) tactics I, and others, used, to tactics used by genocidal dictators. So you're still being hypocritical.

EDIT

because I am beholden to none by unconditional and unquestioning loyalty.

Everyone is beholden to some form of ideology. Your crusading for this mythical neutrality you claim you possess is evidence of this. It's very much like New Atheism, which, convinced of their superior moral compass compared to theists at large, convinced themselves that they were better because they were atheist - thus cementing New Atheism, ironically, as a belief system in of itself. It became a spiritual thing. It became a way to signify an atheist's superiority over a theist, and in doing so missing the entire point of atheism itself.

A similar thing happens to centrists (or nominal centrists) who believe themselves neutral arbiters in the face of constant extremism - a lot like yourself. They fool themselves into believing that because they see extremism, they therefore hold no extreme positions themselves. Such a belief is similarly flawed, much like a lot of your theories are. You are not "better" (in being able to call out the things you claimed) because you allegedly don't ascribe to a coherent ideological position. You are not free of bias because you rail against all perceived ideologies you can put a name to. You fixate on these labels, believing you know the truth of what these labels mean, but in reality all you're doing is providing cover for people that don't proudly wear their ideologies on their sleeves.

For example, I am a leftist (of whatever particular persuasion). I talk a lot about left-leaning stuff (in general, on a range of specific topics). And yet by that simple admission you make a set of value judgements about me (we know this, because you type and post it), and yet you don't about other posters, who are more secretive about their actual ideological favourings.

Again, very ironic for a thread discussing the often-exaggerated and definitely-weaponised (by conservatives in general, against progressive politics) "woke mob". You're a part of a "mob" yourself, Patine. You just don't realise it.

 

[Patine]

You compared (alleged) tactics I, and others, used, to tactics used by genocidal dictators. So you're still being hypocritical.

Of course, it didn't occur to you the tactics being compared were NOT, in fact the tactics of genocide itself, or directly-related to it, but "secondary' odious tactics of said dictators, but ones not unique to said dictators. But it seems you're saying that you, and others, are above the capacity for certain noxious flaws just because they were also used (as secondary evils) by genocidal dictators.

Also, as for your second post, it seems you are likening me to "New Atheism," in ideological style and calling me a closet Conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am correct, that is a contrived and gross misrepresentation of my beliefs - but one that serves for arguments and rhetoric despite being disingenuous. This slandering ideological opponents by declaring them, falsely, to have unfounded viewpoints to create a lie of a narrative to attempt to rhetorically "neuter," is, in fact, the EXACT same "secondary," tactic used by the horrid dictators above (that, as tactics, are not directly genocide tactics), as well as many other, that you were so up in arms about me accusing you of. Thank-you for providing more evidence, of your own free volition, to vindicate my statements.

 

[Gorbles]

Of course, it didn't occur to you the tactics being compared were NOT, in fact the tactics of genocide itself, or directly-related to it, but "secondary' odious tactics of said dictators, but ones not unique to said dictators. But it seems you're saying that you, and others, are above the capacity for certain noxious flaws just because they were also used (as secondary evils) by genocidal dictators.

I've already pointed out previously that these so-called tactics are not unique to the figures you choose to compare people (however superficially) to. It is your choice to repeatedly invoke these names when having a go at other posters. You need to own that choice.

It is particularly ironic considering your repeated (dire) warnings about overusing words like "fascism", when you are also overusing the names of mass murderers and the like to win points on the Internet.

Also, as for your second post, it seems you are likening me to "New Atheism," in ideological style and calling me a closet Conservative. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. I didn't call you a closet anything. Nor did I label you with a specific party / ideological grouping.

Besides, if the problem here is a misrepresentation of your beliefs, then that's no different from your behaviour. There's a lot of that in general (similar to what Czreth pointed out about ad hominems). The question is how we resolve that - for both people involved.

If you believe you are being unfairly portrayed, and other posters feel similar, and you and this other person are having a discussion - what would you do to resolve this? How would you reach out past any prejudice or ingrained opinion (of this poster)?

 

[Patine]

You compared (alleged) tactics I, and others, used, to tactics used by genocidal dictators. So you're still being hypocritical.

EDIT

Everyone is beholden to some form of ideology. Your crusading for this mythical neutrality you claim you possess is evidence of this. It's very much like New Atheism, which, convinced of their superior moral compass compared to theists at large, convinced themselves that they were better because they were atheist - thus cementing New Atheism, ironically, as a belief system in of itself. It became a spiritual thing. It became a way to signify an atheist's superiority over a theist, and in doing so missing the entire point of atheism itself.

A similar thing happens to centrists (or nominal centrists) who believe themselves neutral arbiters in the face of constant extremism - a lot like yourself. They fool themselves into believing that because they see extremism, they therefore hold no extreme positions themselves. Such a belief is similarly flawed, much like a lot of your theories are. You are not "better" (in being able to call out the things you claimed) because you allegedly don't ascribe to a coherent ideological position. You are not free of bias because you rail against all perceived ideologies you can put a name to. You fixate on these labels, believing you know the truth of what these labels mean, but in reality all you're doing is providing cover for people that don't proudly wear their ideologies on their sleeves.

For example, I am a leftist (of whatever particular persuasion). I talk a lot about left-leaning stuff (in general, on a range of specific topics). And yet by that simple admission you make a set of value judgements about me (we know this, because you type and post it), and yet you don't about other posters, who are more secretive about their actual ideological favourings.

Again, very ironic for a thread discussing the often-exaggerated and definitely-weaponised (by conservatives in general, against progressive politics) "woke mob". You're a part of a "mob" yourself, Patine. You just don't realise it.

Coming back to this a bit late (I meant to ask right away) but I got distracted with another response and a bunch of other notices on other threads). What, exactly, ideology are you accusing me of belonging to, adhering faithfully and loyally to, and supporting in a "mob-like," way? And be careful with your answer. The posters here I have responded to the harshest, and who have had sudden plummets in all credibility and integrity - and deservedly so - are those several who have outright tried to publicly DECIDE my beliefs and ideology for me, without truly understanding what I'm really saying, or even caring, as their attempt to smear me is too great - and thus use such disingenuous claims as slander or rhetorical attack. Those several who have done that are lowest to me on this forum. So, let's hear the filing before the HUAC since you've already opened the can of worms with your intimations.

 

[Arwon]

 

[Patine]

Is this video an answer to my last statement, or to someone upthread? Because, if it's for me, I don't watch linked videos on forums unless their official music videos as a convention of my Internet activities - a personal choice you may or not understand or appreciate, but I don't justify or make exceptions about to anyone. If you have a text article rendition of this message, link that and I will read it.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I'm rather jealous since I'm incapable of trilling my R's or being memeworthy!

Here's another video poking fun of people.

 

[Gorbles]

Coming back to this a bit late (I meant to ask right away) but I got distracted with another response and a bunch of other notices on other threads). What, exactly, ideology are you accusing me of belonging to, adhering faithfully and loyally to, and supporting in a "mob-like," way? And be careful with your answer. The posters here I have responded to the harshest, and who have had sudden plummets in all credibility and integrity - and deservedly so - are those several who have outright tried to publicly DECIDE my beliefs and ideology for me, without truly understanding what I'm really saying, or even caring, as their attempt to smear me is too great - and thus use such disingenuous claims as slander or rhetorical attack. Those several who have done that are lowest to me on this forum. So, let's hear the filing before the HUAC since you've already opened the can of worms with your intimations.

To be clear, you're not responding to my latest post, but you're going back to a previous post over another apparent slight over my "intimations"?

Nevermind, Patine. Keep on comparing people to genocidal dictators in whatever specifically-narrow ways you consider justified. Just don't be surprised when people call you on it.

 

[Patine]

To be clear, you're not responding to my latest post, but you're going back to a previous post over another apparent slight over my "intimations"?

Nevermind, Patine. Keep on comparing people to genocidal dictators in whatever specifically-narrow ways you consider justified. Just don't be surprised when people call you on it.

Your hypocrisy and two-faced posts never cease to gobsmack me. "Your evading the point in my posts by pointing the key points I, myself, am also, evading. Now for my self-righteous tell-off at the end of my post, so other people are hoodwinked into believing I have the higher ground of integrity, when I'm really just a lowly hypocrite, myself," is the paraphrased message, edited for honesty, of the post I'm quoting, and quite a few others of yours. Who do you REALLY think your kidding, here?

 

[aelf]

If the 'woke mob' is characterised by moral hysteria, I know a person who would fit right in.

 

[Patine]

If the 'woke mob' is characterised by moral hysteria, I know a person who would fit right in.

Who is this addressed to. Because it can't be me, as I don't use the term "woke mob," except in quotation marks as one of many stupid and counter-productive zeitgeist terms thrown around all the time today, diluting the discourse to an utter cesspool. So, since this isn't a term I use, it couldn't be directed against me, could it? So I'm just curious as to whom it is directed against.