Wokeness Political Poison?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
19,969
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
As some of you know I've been banging on about this for a while.


CNN.

As we know objectively progressive candidates unperformed in 2018, 2020 and recently in Ohio.

Now my view is also filtered through an NZ PoV. Here we have proportional representation and are politically more liberal than the USA.

The progressives (Greens) got 8%. Labour by themselves got around 50%.

BUT Jacinda had the Covid effect and she campaigned as a centrist. She doesn't use the favorite buzzwords you hear online she does say things like be kind. The swing vote is over double the Greens support.

Die vile minion of neutrality. You don't need to be a Fox news lunatic to work out that woke doesn't win.

Trump and co are crazy but they're not the only ones.
 
Sorry, I was put off by the presenter's high-pitched, squeaky voice and his talking too fast.

Municipal elections are in October here. I have absolutely no idea who's running; all I care about is that we get someone halfway intelligent for mayor and that as few people as possible who support the garbage curriculum the provincial cabinet is pushing get elected to the school board.

However, given that many school boards in the province are elected by acclamation, this is probably not something my vote will affect one way or another. But it's still my reason for going to the effort of applying for a mail-in ballot. Now all I have to do is find out who's running and if they support the premier/Minister of Gutting Public Education's stance.


Not sure if the next provincial election will be in 2023 as scheduled or if it will be called sooner. I guess it depends on how low Jason Kenney's numbers go.

The next federal election is also scheduled for 2023, but it's expected that Justin will call it early, probably later this summer or fall. I think if he does, it will backfire because nobody is enthusiastic for elections during a pandemic.
 
Sorry, I was put off by the presenter's high-pitched, squeaky voice and his talking too fast.

Municipal elections are in October here. I have absolutely no idea who's running; all I care about is that we get someone halfway intelligent for mayor and that as few people as possible who support the garbage curriculum the provincial cabinet is pushing get elected to the school board.

However, given that many school boards in the province are elected by acclamation, this is probably not something my vote will affect one way or another. But it's still my reason for going to the effort of applying for a mail-in ballot. Now all I have to do is find out who's running and if they support the premier/Minister of Gutting Public Education's stance.


Not sure if the next provincial election will be in 2023 as scheduled or if it will be called sooner. I guess it depends on how low Jason Kenney's numbers go.

The next federal election is also scheduled for 2023, but it's expected that Justin will call it early, probably later this summer or fall. I think if he does, it will backfire because nobody is enthusiastic for elections during a pandemic.

You live in one of the smaller cities? By that I mean not Vancouver, Montreal etc.
 
What is the point of this thread. What do you want to discuss?
 
You live in one of the smaller cities? By that I mean not Vancouver, Montreal etc.
Definitely not either of those. Synsensa, last I heard, is in Vancouver.

My city is the third-largest in Alberta, at just over 100,000 people. There was talk a few years ago of a ward system for the city council (Calgary and Edmonton are big enough to need wards), but it was decided that we're not big enough to need that yet.
 
Definitely not either of those. Synsensa, last I heard, is in Vancouver.

My city is the third-largest in Alberta, at just over 100,000 people. There was talk a few years ago of a ward system for the city council (Calgary and Edmonton are big enough to need wards), but it was decided that we're not big enough to need that yet.

Yeah from what you're saying it swings conservative.
 
Yeah from what you're saying it swings conservative.
You could run a piece of Maddy's used cat litter under either the Conservative Party of Canada (federal) or the United Conservative Party (provincial) and it would get elected.

2015 was an anomaly when the NDP were elected. This riding has otherwise been conservative for decades.
 
You could run a piece of Maddy's used cat litter under either the Conservative Party of Canada (federal) or the United Conservative Party (provincial) and it would get elected.

2015 was an anomaly when the NDP were elected. This riding has otherwise been conservative for decades.

Yep similar here. I live in a Labour stronghold. Anything with a red rosette is gonna get elected.
 
Basically is wokeness gonna help or hinder the Democrats. Midterms next year.
The Democrats are, on the whole, barely "woke". There are some progressive elements, but on the whole the party only appears progressive because of the Republicans. A lot of the same things that happened under Trump are still happening now. The material changes are far and few between ("so far", before somebody rushes to point that out).

Regardless, words like "woke" don't really mean much at all anymore. It's become a catch-all for "anything left of the cultural centre that I, the user of the word, dislike". When certain minority rights are "woke" but other minority rights arbitrarily aren't, it's a useless word. When atrocities committed by one administration are ignored when committed by another, it's a useless word.

A more interesting discussion is: should an (increasingly) right-wing media get to dictate what words mean, and how can people push back against this kind of weaponised misinformation?
 
As I understand it, woke originally meant to be aware of the systemic inequality that exists in the world. Any time the left forgets this it is doomed to fail in its core goal (cough Blair cough).

These days woke means very different things to different people. Plenty will conflate woke with climate awareness, and anyone of any strand of politics who is willing to ignore the climate catastrophe is on the wrong side, no matter the popularity.

Plenty of unpopular views also get labelled as woke. Supporting unpopular views is unpopular.
 
I thought that "woke" is the (meant ironically) antithesis of "sheeple"; so unironically it would be in tautology with it.

All those terms are points, so the discussion already has ended when they are used; a point can't present volume.
 
As I understand it, woke originally meant to be aware of the systemic inequality that exists in the world. Any time the left forgets this it is doomed to fail in its core goal (cough Blair cough).

These days woke means very different things to different people. Plenty will conflate woke with climate awareness, and anyone of any strand of politics who is willing to ignore the climate catastrophe is on the wrong side, no matter the popularity.

Plenty of unpopular views also get labelled as woke. Supporting unpopular views is unpopular.

I think climate change is the big threat.

But the left wants to do all sorts of things which confuses the overall message.

Additionally thy want to expand the welfare state while also addressing climate change.

But to pay for the welfare state you need to consume.

As I kid I often wondered why ancient humans were dumb to deplete food sources like megafauna.

Well now I know.
 
But to pay for the welfare state you need to consume.
I do not get this line. For a welfare state you need to ensure that everyone has housing, food and healthcare. For that you need housing, food and healthcare. That should be perfectly aligned with climate goals, which has to involve providing food, housing and healthcare in a sustainable manner, without excess consumption.
 
I think climate change is the big threat.

But the left wants to do all sorts of things which confuses the overall message.

Additionally thy want to expand the welfare state while also addressing climate change.

But to pay for the welfare state you need to consume.

As I kid I often wondered why ancient humans were dumb to deplete food sources like megafauna.

Well now I know.
Not to defend ancient humans, but they weren't exactly equipped to do aerial views, take a yearly count, or track specific animals to see what they eat (if they eat), which animal they reproduce with (if they do), and the number and health of the offspring.

But to condemn ancient humans... I'm a Roman history buff and belong to two Roman history/Latin language forums (found a Civ player on one of them the other day!). My point is that the Emperors and senators of the Republic and Empire should be reassembled from their ashes and executed all over again for crimes against the planet. The sheer number of each species they used in arena games, exhibitions, and executions is beyond appalling. And don't get me started on all the animals killed for "sacrifices" in their religious rites (and every other ancient civilization that did likewise).

I'm no vegan. But at least the animals I eat (chicken eggs and fish, mostly) are for the purpose of eating, not something pointless like games and 'sacrifices' (it's the animals that have the worst of it; the humans are not really "sacrificing" anything that meant anything to them).

I do not get this line. For a welfare state you need to ensure that everyone has housing, food and healthcare. For that you need housing, food and healthcare. That should be perfectly aligned with climate goals, which has to involve providing food, housing and healthcare in a sustainable manner, without excess consumption.
Yes, but it has to be paid for, somehow. It's the really frustrating fact that my disability benefit that keeps me alive is paid for partly because of the oil and gas industry here. This is why I can support people like Greta Thunberg on an emotional level, but on a practical level, there are times when she has no idea what she's talking about.

But there's a right way and a wrong way, and I want to slap the hell out of any right-wing politician who waves a hand and says the tarsands can be remediated back to a healthy environment within a decade.

It can't. Even if they stopped production tomorrow, packed up all the machinery, and never went back, that part of the province will need at least a century or more to recover. The tailings ponds killed thousands of birds that had no idea they were landing in a lake of poison; it looked like ordinary water to them. The fish in the Athabasca river have cancer. The indigenous people in that region have more cancer than is "normal" in any local population (cancer should never be 'normal').


As for "woke"... around here it means what side you're on about climate, the residential school situation (I've had to sort out where my sympathy and empathy lies, and it's not 100% on the side of the indigenous; I know they and their ancestors were treated horribly, but there comes a time when enough is enough), women's rights, promoting minorities into positions of authority, disabled people's rights, covid vaccinations, and so on.

I really don't know at this point if that word applies to me. I refuse to take the blame for the residential schools, I'm opposed to the rampant vandalism of statues, the churches that burned... did the arsonists check if anyone was inside, they obviously didn't care that some of their own people were supporters of these places, and they didn't care that the fire could have spread to the surrounding neighborhood or caused a forest fire.

The newest notion of renaming British Columbia because of the part of the name deriving from Christopher Columbus - not to defend Columbus' attitude and actions, but while it's one thing to rename a school or sports team, it gets to be ridiculous when renaming cities and provinces. You'd have to rename most of Canada if you wanted all place names to either be an indigenous word or the English translation thereof. I guess I should be relieved that Red Deer is already a translation of a local indigenous word (I lived in the subdivision that actually is that word).

On the flip side... yes, to covid vaccines and I am not opposed to restrictions for people who refuse to get them for any reason other than medical ("it hurts" is not a valid medical reason). It's infuriating how there are so many people opposed to simple things and procedures to help the disabled live as normal a life as possible. It's in the friggin' Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the disabled cannot be discriminated against, yet our own federal government does it.

So if it's "woke" to spread the word about that, and advocate for disabled voters' rights, I guess I'm "woke". But it's not a new thing. I've had to fight some elections for the past 20 years to have my right to vote as I'm allowed to (and qualify for) respected by the local Returning Officers. And that's with me knowing my rights, as I used to be a Deputy Returning Officer. There are far too many who don't know their rights, and too many who have told me to my "face" either in person or on the phone that "I didn't know people like you could vote."
 
I'm no vegan. But at least the animals I eat (chicken eggs and fish, mostly) are for the purpose of eating, not something pointless like games and 'sacrifices' (it's the animals that have the worst of it; the humans are not really "sacrificing" anything that meant anything to them).
I think most of these ancient (and modern day) sacrifices basically involved the ritual killing and eating of the animal, so they were/are no more wasted than your diner.
 
I do not get this line. For a welfare state you need to ensure that everyone has housing, food and healthcare. For that you need housing, food and healthcare. That should be perfectly aligned with climate goals, which has to involve providing food, housing and healthcare in a sustainable manner, without excess consumption.

NZ can feed 40 million people.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...imate-change-response-criticism-unfair-ardern

But we can't do it sustainably in terms of climate change goals.

We could if we feed ourselves I suppose but then our economy tanks and 35 million people need to source food elsewhere. Food shortages getting worse.

Assuming those people can source food elsewhere can they do it as efficiently as NZ? If the answer in no they're creating more pollution than we are.

We are a welfare state with housing crisis problem. Need money the build houses. Need resources to build said housing.

We need an alternative to petroleum and cows basically that's viable for export.

Emotionally I agree with Greta. Doesn't help she has a face you want to slap.
 
Last edited:
NZ can feed 40 million people.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/politica...imate-change-response-criticism-unfair-ardern

But we can't do it sustainably in terms of climate change goals.

We could if we feed ourselves I suppose but then our economy tanks and 35 million people need to source food elsewhere.

We are a welfare state with housing crisis problem. Need money the build houses. Need resources to build said housing.
The GHG emissions from farming are certainly an issue, but it is one of those issues that we HAVE to find a solution to. If we can convert the rest of transport to electric then I see no reason why tractors could not be. I know you kiwis love your sheep, and it is possible that ruminants will not be part of our food landscape going forward, but we may be able to fix it with genetic engineering.
 
I get what the CNN guy is talking about—it’s not the Democrats as a whole, or even a large group within, but a noisy fraction of the party that gets an oversized amount of attention inside and out.

It is a losing strategy to constantly harangue people no matter the cause, so they (I mean some Democrats, trying not to speak so broadly) should be careful about hitching their wagons to these groups.

They’re also well-represented on the internet, kind of like the Ron Paul acolytes and Howard Dean pushers of yesteryear. Bill Clinton did a good job of navigating those waters, I mean in terms of not letting one wing flap too much. Obama a little less so, at least in his appearance; I don’t mean his race, but more some of the comments that later came to be controversial.

Biden seems to be doing a decent job of not touching these third rails so far, and Pelosi is a master of party politics, so I think as time goes on it’ll be less and less od a problem.
 
Top Bottom