Random political thought thread.

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I've never heard anyone use the word woke in a non-pejorative fashion. I also feel that some of the above posts are describing it too proudly. I wouldn't describe fighting for universal healthcare as "woke" (well, I wouldn't use that word to begin with); that affects everyone, not just a specific group.

This post might be a mistake, but it's been rattling around in my brain for a while:

But I would split what it refers to into two groups: things I understand, and things I don't understand. If I had a problem with "woke" it would be that I don't feel free to ask questions about the things I don't understand. I can understand why you should use people's preferred pronouns, I can understand why you shouldn't use ethnic slurs, I can understand why women should be free to pursue any kind of career they want, etc.

The things I don't understand, well, I am under the impression that if I were to ask questions; I would be subject to heavy criticism, under the assumption that these are things that any decent person would already know the answer to. This mentality puzzles and distressed me, in response to the good faith questions that I believe I would make. I would not be asking these questions with a desire to destroy feminism or any equivalent movement. Can't you strengthen a movement by asking questions, by making your thinking stronger and more airtight and resistance to criticism? I'm inclined to think that this could actually be better for a movement. Is that wrong? What about someone terrible by someone stepping back for a moment, and saying, "Hey, I don't get this"?

I suppose they assume that any questions are bad faith questions. I don't see how a movement like that can triumph. If you can't handle good-faith questions, how can you hope to handle the bad faith questions, or the things that are worse than bad faith questions? If you insist it's imperative that everyone already understand something to the degree that such questions are not necessary, how is that good for a movement? You are either going to have a lot of members who don't really understand what they are fighting for, which isn't good, or have a lot of people outright refuse to join, which isn't good. You can't reach out or build something with this mentality.

 

[The Cat]

 

[SensEye]

I will weigh in here as @Coriolis was addressing me.

I had no problem being asked what I was meaning by woke. Because it has two definitions these days. The original definition which Coriolis mentioned and I have no problem with people with that kind of mindset. However, per JVD, woke is now more commonly used in the pejorative fashion, and indeed, that is how I was using it and tend to use the term in general. As a catch all condemnation of what I consider to be blind, non well thought out, virtue signaling nonsense combined with a holier than thou political correct overtone (never state a view that may offend someone). I consider those kind of woke people daft. And they are very common these days. So it's a good catch all term to describe that kind of thinking. The woke mind virus as it is also referred to.

My usage is not the original definition of woke and I am aware of it. Just like gay is much more commonly used to define sexual orientation vs it's original definition of festive. So I am fine with Coriolis seeking clarity of how I am using the term or we might have trouble understanding each other. S/he can generally assume I am using woke in the pejorative fashion.

The religious thing I had no problem with either. I'm not religious and that's just the way I am. Although I find it neither here nor there for political discussions. I mean, Trump is the favorite of most of the religious right, and that guy is all selfishness, condemnation, hate and fear mongering. There is not a charitable or 'love thy neighbor' bone in his body. In fact, if I was a believer in biblical prophesy, I would say Trump ticks all the boxes as a candidate for the antichrist. And yet many so called Christians in the USA seem to love him. Go figure.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The religious thing I had no problem with either. I'm not religious and that's just the way I am. Although I find it neither here nor there for political discussions. I mean, Trump is the favorite of most of the religious right, and that guy is all selfishness, condemnation, hate and fear mongering. There is not a charitable or 'love thy neighbor' bone in his body. In fact, if I was a believer in biblical prophesy, I would say Trump ticks all the boxes as a candidate for the antichrist. And yet many so called Christians in the USA seem to love him. Go figure.

That is because those people are afraid of "woke stuff" enough to forgive him anything. It is strange dynamic but it can be explained.

This is exactly why I would like that "the woke world" quiets down. Or that it develops more detailed or thought out explanations and plans. Since that would surely take some oxygen away from the Trump world. What could play a major role in November.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

That is because those people are afraid of "woke stuff" enough to forgive him anything. It is strange dynamic but it can be explained.

This is exactly why I would like that "the woke world" quiets down. Or that it develops more detailed or thought out explanations and plans. Since that would surely take some oxygen away from the Trump world. What could play a major role in November.

I'm not convinced a lot of these people are really afraid of "woke" stuff. That's an excuse they give to make a lot of people sympathetic to them. What aspiring militia leader is actually afraid of a rainbow colored beer can? I don't buy it. I think the truth is that they just love populist authoritarianism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not convinced a lot of these people are really afraid of "woke" stuff. That's an excuse they give to make a lot of people sympathetic to them. What aspiring militia leader is actually afraid of a rainbow colored beer can? I don't buy it. I think the truth is that they just love populist authoritarianism.

Of course that they love that. But that is probably because that completely disrupts liberal ideas and their implementation.
I really do have the impression that there is some kinda of mission at the end of the line.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Of course that they love that. But that is probably because that completely disrupts liberal ideas and their implementation.
I really do have the impression that there is some kinda of mission at the end of the line.

For a lot of them in the U.S, it all has to do the with the Book of Revelation. This is the most important book of the Bible for them, and the best part is, it can always be adapted to current events whenever the previous prophecies fail to materialize. It's essentially an infinite loop.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Regarding marijuana:

Alcohol is legal almost everywhere except Islamic countries. Alcohol can cause many health problems, too, but has the advantage of centuries of tradition behind it. Too much marijuana is probably not good for you, but it's the same for alcohol.

Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is driven by a few different things, some of which I suppose in Europe might not apply because of history.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Yes, and your arguments are based on things you feel. Obviously, feeling and analysis are used by all human beings to form an opinion. I think your 'worries' about the disabled and such are pure nonsense. The same hue and cry is raised by the anti medically assisted dying crowd. Yet MAID has been legal (in Canada anyways) since 2016. I am certain not one disabled person has been unwillingly euthanized.

I used to be for euthanasia. In more recent years, I'm not so sure. I understand there is consideration occurring to people with psychiatric disorders, and I know I'm strongly against this. My reasoning is quite simple: people suffering from this often have a distorted understanding of what is going on. They are not making a well-considered choice. Depression doesn't distort things in the way other disorders, exactly, but I find something wrong with the idea that people with depression should just kill themselves and that's fine.

But in general, I'm not in favor of these utilitarian considerations concerning life and death. It's reminiscent of the way the logic of the market dictates everything; I don't consider either of these approaches to be part of an ideal society.

None of this is religious instead, it's based on my developing an acute sense in my 30s of how callous society already is towards human lives. I suppose I already had the intellectual knowledge, but this is more experiential, which is a different beast entirely. I'm reluctant to shepherd this callousness further along.

It's pure emotion based fear mongering usually deployed when no reasonable data to support one's position can be found. However, if the mentally ill are murdering innocent and healthy and productive members of society, they have to be contained. Society does not have infinite resources, sometimes pragmatic decisions have to be made. I am always surprised at the almost zero concern for the victims. Their death is greeted with a collective shrug of indifference. It's like the ivory tower moralists think "well I committed no crime so who cares, but if I support the death penalty I might feel some guilt, best make my decision 100% based on protecting my own delicate sensibilities".

I have no problem with locking people up for life. I will also note that execution doesn't bring victims back, as far as I know.

I do things out of guilt frequently. This is a form of guilt that exists as a result of my private failures. My opinions on the death penalty have nothing to do with guilt.

 

[Red Herring]

I just listened to a podcast by Der Spiegel (highly influential German news magazine, vaguely center-left but not very ideological) on the history of the Republican Party in the US and how the process of radicalization came about.
What stuck with me and what is important to know for Americans who see me discuss the AfD and the German far-right with @Virtual ghost is that these days the US has one large party, the Democrats, that covers everything from the German far-left to the German still-socially-acceptable right (Like to CSU) and another large party, the Republicans, that covers the AfD and everything to the right of the AfD (a. k. a. the socially inacceptable right). Numberwise that would mean that at least 80% of Germans are politically closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, even though the country tends to be mildly center-right by its own standards.

The current debate over here is over whether to even invite those people to public events and whether the conservatives could at some point cooperate with them (mind you that conservatism is by definition anti-revolutionary and that Trump and the like are not conservatives at all but belong to the revolutionary right (for which there is of course a name of its own)).

Basically, we have vaguely similar trends to you Americans but Germany is at that point now where the US was some 20 - 30 years ago regarding the inner conflict of the right but we have not had our George W. moment yet and should therefor still be some years away from a German Trump.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I just listened to a podcast by Der Spiegel (highly influential German news magazine, vaguely center-left but not very ideological) on the history of the Republican Party in the US and how the process of radicalization came about.
What stuck with me and what is important to know for Americans who see me discuss the AfD and the German far-right with @Virtual ghost is that these days the US has one large party, the Democrats, that covers everything from the German far-left to the German still-socially-acceptable right (Like to CSU) and another large party, the Republicans, that covers the AfD and everything to the right of the AfD (a. k. a. the socially inacceptable right). Numberwise that would mean that at least 80% of Germans are politically closer to the Democrats than to the Republicans, even though the country tends to be mildly center-right by its own standards.

The current debate over here is over whether to even invite those people to public events and whether the conservatives could at some point cooperate with them (mind you that conservatism is by definition anti-revolutionary and that Trump and the like are not conservatives at all but belong to the revolutionary right (for which there is of course a name of its own)).

Basically, we have vaguely similar trends to you Americans but Germany is at that point now where the US was some 20 - 30 years ago regarding the inner conflict of the right but we have not had our George W. moment yet and should therefor still be some years away from a German Trump.

First of all I have my doubts that the Democrats are covering this wide area of German politics. Since the party is evidently to the right in economic sense to just about anything that exists in Germany. If this correlation was the case then in blue states things would be pretty much like in Germany, and that evidently isn't the case. Social issues yes, but economy not really if my impression is even remotely right.


However that isn't really why I am making this post. In other words I am wondering if in Germany Trump has any appeal on the left side of the spectrum ? I mean in many Slavic places around Europe there is one decent chunk of the left that actually loves the guy. Not so much at the face value but because they hope he will make a complete mess out of US and in the end crash NATO. In US these people are collectively known as Russian trolls but they don't have to be Russians. Although to a typical US citizen all Slavs are basically Russians. Especially if they have anti US worldviews. For example my left wing president is basically bigger "macho" than Trump. In other words about a year ago Pelosi came to Croatia and the president didn't want to met with her. With explanation: she is a nothing-burger that really isn't worth my time. Plus she is about to lose midterms, so there really is no point in that meeting. Especially since some of her attention-whoring Ukrainian friends will be there". I mean this was said directly into the camera and after that he went to the beach to have some fun (instead of meeting Pelosi).

I mean this is the same guy about which you asked me why on Earth he wants to block Finland's NATO membership ? I mean the man is pure example of what people in the first world consider to be a "commie". On that we can add his comment that Crimea will never be Ukraine again. That COVID vaccines are a fraud. Public insulting of people bacause of their background. Going after family members of opponents (old Communist tactic). Slamming EU and Ursula in his Christmas massage. Pointing out gay politicans in public even if it isn't known that they are gay ...etc. I mean next to my president even Trump often sounds like a relatively nice guy. However despite this kind of rhetoric my president seems to have a shot at being re-elected. Since his leftist base doesn't seem to mind all that much. After all his center left struck down votes about helping Ukraine that they could crash (those that required 2/3 majority. What in the end party base actully liked (based on comments and the fact that they didn't lose anything in the polls) .


So in Germany you don't have this kind of political option ? Even if it is some minor party ?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Marijuana legalization in the U.S. is driven by a few different things, some of which I suppose in Europe might not apply because of history.

What exactly do you mean by this if I can ask ?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Special Election Tuesday to Fill the Congressional Seat Held by George Santos

Dems flipped the seat.
(plus some other races now have known results).

 

[Red Herring]

What exactly do you mean by this if I can ask ?

As far as I know drug use and the different legal punishments for it have a racial angle in the US (as in there are certain drugs more often taken by white and others more often taken by black people and the punishment for the latter tends to be higher)

 

[Virtual ghost]

As far as I know drug use and the different legal punishments for it have a racial angle in the US (as in there are certain drugs more often taken by white and others more often taken by black people and the punishment for the latter tends to be higher)

Ok, I was thinking that something more complicated is behind that claim.

 

[The Cat]

But sure, trust the polls not your eyes.​

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

As far as I know drug use and the different legal punishments for it have a racial angle in the US (as in there are certain drugs more often taken by white and others more often taken by black people and the punishment for the latter tends to be higher)

Yes; in this case it's people of color being sentenced to prison for marijuana-related crimes at a far higher rate. The "war on drugs" is seen (correctly, IMO) by many as part of a racist agenda.

Legalization has created an additional issue, at least in Illinois. Most of the dispensaries are white-owned, which means that the people who were victimized by past policies are not seeing any of the benefits of legalization. Many would argue (and I agree) that this should be redressed.

I don't know what the history is in Continental Europe or even the UK.

 

[Coriolis]

I've never heard anyone use the word woke in a non-pejorative fashion. I also feel that some of the above posts are describing it too proudly. I wouldn't describe fighting for universal healthcare as "woke" (well, I wouldn't use that word to begin with); that affects everyone, not just a specific group.

This post might be a mistake, but it's been rattling around in my brain for a while:

But I would split what it refers to into two groups: things I understand, and things I don't understand. If I had a problem with "woke" it would be that I don't feel free to ask questions about the things I don't understand. I can understand why you should use people's preferred pronouns, I can understand why you shouldn't use ethnic slurs, I can understand why women should be free to pursue any kind of career they want, etc.

The things I don't understand, well, I am under the impression that if I were to ask questions; I would be subject to heavy criticism, under the assumption that these are things that any decent person would already know the answer to. This mentality puzzles and distressed me, in response to the good faith questions that I believe I would make. I would not be asking these questions with a desire to destroy feminism or any equivalent movement. Can't you strengthen a movement by asking questions, by making your thinking stronger and more airtight and resistance to criticism? I'm inclined to think that this could actually be better for a movement. Is that wrong? What about someone terrible by someone stepping back for a moment, and saying, "Hey, I don't get this"?

I suppose they assume that any questions are bad faith questions. I don't see how a movement like that can triumph. If you can't handle good-faith questions, how can you hope to handle the bad faith questions, or the things that are worse than bad faith questions? If you insist it's imperative that everyone already understand something to the degree that such questions are not necessary, how is that good for a movement? You are either going to have a lot of members who don't really understand what they are fighting for, which isn't good, or have a lot of people outright refuse to join, which isn't good. You can't reach out or build something with this mentality.

I don't know the origin of the term "woke", to describe the learned/acquired awareness of social injustices and one's role in helping to right them. Personally I find the term rather stupid for what it means, but that's beside the point. The negative connotations seem to come from those who do not accept the significance or sometimes even the existence of the injustice, and therefore see no need to change or improve anything. Lots of words that mean good things have been saddled with bad baggage similarly (e.g. feminism). We are all better served simply by stating our meaning clearly, without the use of these charged and ambiguous words that too often trigger kneejerk reactions rather than reasoned response.

As for your questions, what do you think would not be well received? Some examples would be helpful.

 

[The Cat]

I don't know the origin of the term "woke", to describe the learned/acquired awareness of social injustices and one's role in helping to right them. Personally I find the term rather stupid for what it means, but that's beside the point. The negative connotations seem to come from those who do not accept the significance or sometimes even the existence of the injustice, and therefore see no need to change or improve anything. Lots of words that mean good things have been saddled with bad baggage similarly (e.g. feminism). We are all better served simply by stating our meaning clearly, without the use of these charged and ambiguous words that too often trigger kneejerk reactions rather than reasoned response.

As for your questions, what do you think would not be well received? Some examples would be helpful.

There's the American Dream.
Then there's the people who woke up.
And those who were never allowed to be asleep.

Regarding its origins...

 

[Red Herring]

I don't know what the history is in Continental Europe or even the UK.

Well, we all have a different history over here. I am not aware of a great historical link like that but of course ethnic minorities tend to belong to a lower income class and there is a strong link between poverty and crime, so migrants tend to have a higher than average crime rate compared to the ethnic majority (remember that most ethnic minorities in Europe are first or second generation migrants from former colonies or other developing nations, some from war-torn countries and many with little formal education).

I am not aware of drug consumption being linked to specific ethnic or cultural groups in Germany, but there is a systemic problem all over Europe with African migrants being trafficked to Europe by coyotes in exchange for endentured labor (sort of like poor Europeans migrating to America in the 19th century who also had to work off the costs of the boat trip). In many cases the men then work as drug dealers and the women as prostitutes (in Spain additional typical jobs for undocumented African migrants are farm helpers and streetvendors of pirated CDs and DVDs or sunglasses and alcohol (well, back when I lived there it was)). Or they are either not allowed to work for legal reasons or can't find a job and then end up selling drugs on the streets.