White "woke" women. They're fair game to many of them.
The Culture Wars
- Thread starter DOTA
- Start date
Regarding white woke women this is the apparent mugshot of the 26 people arrested in connection with the riots 2 days ago involving toppling the two statues and smashing the museum.
Last edited:
I can't speak for people outside twitter but he does seem to have managed to piss every side off. The more left wing types because of the critique of white "woke" women and the more right wing types because he described the historical actions of white men as "crimes against humanity" and told white women to shut up, sit down and "take your talking to" from people of color. Just based on a quick overview of twitter, comedians (obviously) and 'black twitter' seem to have found his monologue hilarious.
On an aside, I think Bill Burr (and maybe Colin Quinn) seem to have a reasonably good sense of perspective about the culture war thing. I've seen Burr make fun of PC culture, but also make fun of comedians who try to leverage the whole cancel culture thing to make themselves seem like martyrs; when he was promoting his last Netflix special, he talked in an interview about how much he hates comedians using this tp make themselves seem 'dangerous' (he said something along the lines of "Dude, you tell knock-knock jokes. Stop making it seem like you're some rebel."). I think not taking himself too seriously makes him funnier and generally makes his critique of cancel culture more palatable compared not only to the whole IDW/Ben Shapiro crew, but also Ricky Gervais and to a lesser extent, maybe even Dave Chappelle.
Yeah, exactly. It’s a bit of a cliché but the fact that he married a black woman (and often talks about how she is educating him on the experience of being black in America) means he can deal with racism in his comedy in a far more thoughtful and clever way than any other white comic I can think of. So it’s no surprise that he nails the funny bone of “black twitter” with this monologue.
His Netflix special is superb. He tip-toes through the culture war, taking shots at both sides, without ever being genuinely offensive or nasty. Plus it’s funny as feck.
Last edited:
The point is: Burr didn't piss "every" side off; he also catered to a part of the political spectrum, as all comedy does. It's just a characteristic of this section that its adherents don't perceive themselves as an active part of the political mess, having political identities of their own. They usually perceive themselves as objective outside observers of a "culture war" they happen to be detached from. The ideologue is always the other.
The notions that "everybody" or "both sides" were pissed off by Burr illustrates that misconception pretty well: by simple logic, all those who liked the monologue are "nobody" and "no side" then. It's only jargon, but jargon can be quite telling.
I'd say here on the CE this section is most vocally represented by @Pogue Mahone (liberal end) and @Shamana (right wing end). It's far from a uniform crowd, but despite all differences, common ground is the resentment for "wokes" and "political correctness". I find it pretty obvious that enemyship to the leftist bogeyman has a certain unifying quality for a broad part of the public, who otherwise severely dislike each other. That's also why - I've pointed that out some time earlier - all of them can use the same set of political buzzwords, including far right outlets like Fox News and Breitbart. Or whatever their equivalents in other countries.
Trump's posture of chivalrously protecting legitimate black concerns from Marxist white Antifa extremists is a good example for the general formula. He's just too clumsy and obvious to really make it work.
Last edited:
Regarding white woke women this is the apparent mugshot of the 26 people arrested in connection with the riots 2 days ago involving toppling the two statues and smashing the museum.
Looks like the Harry Potter fan club took J K Rowling outing herself as a TERF pretty badly.
Regarding white woke women this is the apparent mugshot of the 26 people arrested in connection with the riots 2 days ago involving toppling the two statues and smashing the museum.
I'm tired but it looks like 25 mugshots to me. Might be one is hidden behind the gravitationally challenged person middle right though.
It's because I took the mugshot from lawenforcementtoday.com instead of the picture circulating on twitter containing the additional missing person on the mugshot. Its true on this one there is only 25.
Last edited:
When I get tired for whatever reason these things shout out at me. It isn't important, I'm pulling your leg.
Hey you sank my battleship
Last edited:
Lefties call themself liberal but where is that same "liberal tolerance" when I want to change my gender to Hitler Youth.
I was literally "cancelled" outside the school gates for trying to strangle passing children.
And other tales of oppressed Tories.
I was literally "cancelled" outside the school gates for trying to strangle passing children.
And other tales of oppressed Tories.
Any amount of tory is too much, but if kids in the park can tell you're a tory you're way too much of a tory.
Don't criticise me for a simple political disagreement.
People should be free to support whoever they want, without fear of name calling.
It's not racist to express my freedom of speech rights in support of my Tory team.
let me live in Tory peace, free from oppressive lefty kids.
Just fecking horrible people.
crying.If you use the same standards used to arrive at that (nonsensical) 100 million number, the capitalist number far surpasses that. The numbers themselves are very questionable, for example the book's co-authors themselves have questioned 100m. And in their comparison with Nazi deaths, the book doesn't count deaths in the second world war. The methodology is also controversial:
http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.html
Like others, Ryan reasonably selects as Exhibit A of the criminal indictment the Chinese famines of 1958-61, with a death toll of 25-40 million, he reports, a sizeable chunk of the 100 million corpses the "recording angels" attribute to "Communism" (whatever that is, but let us use the conventional term). The terrible atrocity fully merits the harsh condemnation it has received for many years, renewed here. It is, furthermore, proper to attribute the famine to Communism. That conclusion was established most authoritatively in the work of economist Amartya Sen, whose comparison of the Chinese famine to the record of democratic India received particular attention when he won the Nobel Prize a few years ago. Writing in the early 1980s, Sen observed that India had suffered no such famine. He attributed the India-China difference to India's "political system of adversarial journalism and opposition," while in contrast, China's totalitarian regime suffered from "misinformation" that undercut a serious response, and there was "little political pressure" from opposition groups and an informed public (Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen, Hunger and Public Action, 1989; they estimate deaths at 16.5 to 29.5 million).
The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).
In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in
The example stands as a dramatic "criminal indictment" of totalitarian Communism, exactly as Ryan writes. But before closing the book on the indictment we might want to turn to the other half of Sen's India-China comparison, which somehow never seems to surface despite the emphasis Sen placed on it. He observes that India and China had "similarities that were quite striking" when development planning began 50 years ago, including death rates. "But there is little doubt that as far as morbidity, mortality and longevity are concerned, China has a large and decisive lead over India" (in education and other social indicators as well). He estimates the excess of mortality in India over China to be close to 4 million a year: "India seems to manage to fill its cupboard with more skeletons every eight years than China put there in its years of shame," 1958-1961 (Dreze and Sen).
In both cases, the outcomes have to do with the "ideological predispositions" of the political systems: for China, relatively equitable distribution of medical resources, including rural health services, and public distribution of food, all lacking in India. This was before 1979, when "the downward trend in
About capitalist numbers:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2001/jan/20/historybooks.famine
In Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis charts the unprecedented human suffering caused by a series of extreme climactic conditions in the final quarter of the 19th century. Drought and monsoons afflicted much of China, southern Africa, Brazil, Egypt and India. The death tolls were staggering: around 12m Chinese and over 6m Indians in 1876-1878 alone. The chief culprit, according to Davis, was not the weather, but European empires, with Japan and the US. Their imposition of free-market economics on the colonial world was tantamount to a "cultural genocide".
https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/gabinetpostal/lestat-lliure-del-congo-un-genocidi-a-lombra/?lang=en
Leopold II ruled the Congo as his personal dominion from 1885 to 1908. During this period, the country was forced to endure the systematic exploitation of its natural resources, especially ivory and rubber.
Though the territory was governed from Brussels, the administrative capital was the port city of Boma, from where the massive exports of raw materials were shipped. Boma was the residence of the Governor General of the Congo, who was the direct representative of the king (in fact, Leopold II never once set foot in Africa). The state was divided into 14 districts which were administrated by commissioners who reported to the Governor General, and were appointed directly by the king. These functionaries sometimes acted as colonial administrators and trading agents, though their main function was to secure the largest possible amounts of ivory and rubber in the shortest possible time.
During the 1890s, and thanks to the widespread use of slaves, a more reliable transport network was built up, thus making it possible to export even more of the Congo’s natural resources. The construction of these infrastructures, all created exclusively for personal interests, resulted in the deaths of many workers of all ages. Their working days were long and hard, and required an enormous amount of physical effort. According to historical documentation, between five and 10 million people died as a result of the colonial exploitation under the rule and administration of King Leopold II and his functionaries.
Though the territory was governed from Brussels, the administrative capital was the port city of Boma, from where the massive exports of raw materials were shipped. Boma was the residence of the Governor General of the Congo, who was the direct representative of the king (in fact, Leopold II never once set foot in Africa). The state was divided into 14 districts which were administrated by commissioners who reported to the Governor General, and were appointed directly by the king. These functionaries sometimes acted as colonial administrators and trading agents, though their main function was to secure the largest possible amounts of ivory and rubber in the shortest possible time.
During the 1890s, and thanks to the widespread use of slaves, a more reliable transport network was built up, thus making it possible to export even more of the Congo’s natural resources. The construction of these infrastructures, all created exclusively for personal interests, resulted in the deaths of many workers of all ages. Their working days were long and hard, and required an enormous amount of physical effort. According to historical documentation, between five and 10 million people died as a result of the colonial exploitation under the rule and administration of King Leopold II and his functionaries.
https://www.history.com/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states
From the time Europeans arrived on American shores, the frontier—the edge territory between white man’s civilization and the untamed natural world—became a shared space of vast, clashing differences that led the U.S. government to authorize over 1,500 wars, attacks and raids on Indians, the most of any country in the world against its indigenous people. By the close of the Indian Wars in the late 19th century, fewer than 238,000 indigenous people remained, a sharp decline from the estimated 5 million to 15 million living in North America when Columbus arrived in 1492.
Away from these distant colonies, the famine in Ireland killed an eighth of the population, something Mao's obsession of steel and sparrows couldn't come close to matching, and not even the sadism, brutality, and irrationality of Pol Pot can match what happened in Congo (half the population).
Is it fair to blame capitalism for these deaths?
Yes. Colonisation was a natural by-product of capitalism. Hence, nearly all successful capitalist countries - Britain, France, Germany, Holland, and Japan had or tried to have a colonial empire. Portugal had a colonial empire without (mostly) being an industrial capitalist country, but their loot was the input for other capitalist countries. The US was the exception since it never had a formal empire, their colonisation happened in their own backyard, into the "empty" land (in which millions lived and resources worth much more than those lives could be found).
And there is a reason why the capitalist revolution spurred colonial expansion. New factories needed raw materials and markets for their outputs. Trade of commodities bought or stolen from the colonies was done by private stock-market companies (like the East India Company, which ran India till 1857, and pioneered many of the features of corporations today; the Dutch East India Company did the world's first IPO). Invasions and coups were carried out, and colonies earned, in the name of free trade (like the Opium wars). Of course, not just Europeans, it was the first Indian industrialists (Tatas) which backed the East India Company during the opium wars, since they dealth in opium. Trade of humans generated the raw materials for the American industrial boom (African slaves picking cotton and tobacco in the US). The madness in Belgian Congo had a clear economic motive (getting and selling rubber). The US invaded Guatemala on behalf of a banana company.
Property relations and free trade, which is how you describe capitalism, are not a naturally-existing state of things. They are brought about, usually by force. For example generations of peasant tenants would farm the same land from generations of landlords, even though it was not in their name. A big part of industrial development in England was the conferring of private property rights on these lands, which meant the peasants could be evicted from their ancestral lands, forced to either die or go out looking for work, and they eventually formed the labour for the industrial revolution. Exchange has existed in every society including every feudal, socialist and communist one, the distinction of capitalist trade from previous eras was that it brought all of life into the sphere of property relations. Every house and every piece of land was now part of the market, for example. As I said, world trade itself was expanded at gunpoint.
So if capitalism is so violent, why are so many billions living and (to a decent extent) not starving today?
Well, I think it is neither capitalism nor communism but industrialisation that produces these deaths. Note that there was no widespread famine in the USSR after 1935 or in China after 1961. And that colonial empires were no longer needed by the middle of the 20th century.
Last edited:
That's a long-ass post which I don't have wits to reply to. I think this is the wrong thread for this discussion though.
When I struggle with pronouncing my (white) student Camille's name correctly, that's actually racism, and when my parents named me by copying a name they liked, they were giving me an ethnic(??) gift(???).
Would just like to add that I think this is a good post, I just don't have the brain power for much of a reponse. I don't necessarily disagree with it. When I thought about a more apppropiate thread, I thought of this one
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/“socialism”-vs-“capitalism”-debate.453316/
Or perhaps starting a new one thread like "Capitalism" or "Capitalism vs the alternatives."
Perhaps this would be an interesting book to read on the subject(for myself at least)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Livre_noir_du_capitalisme
Last edited:
Videos From Right-Wing Site That Preaches 'The Left Ruins Everything' Assigned In Ohio School
An Ohio public school has been giving students extra credit for watching videos from PragerU, a right-wing website that produces clips of talking heads such as Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro discussing conservative viewpoints, HuffPost has learned.
The PragerU videos — with titles such as “Build the Wall,” “Why the Right Was Right” and “The Left Ruins Everything” — were assigned to a 10th-grade history class at Maumee High School, along with a series of questions about the videos’ “most important messages.”
The assignment came at the same time that the website has tried to gain further influence in K-12 classrooms. Earlier this month, the organization launched a program directly aimed at parents and educators, complete with study guides with sections such as “Conservatives Are the Real Environmentalists” and “The Ferguson Lie,” based on a HuffPost review of the materials.
More at the link: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...prageru_n_5f889a29c5b6e9e76fbb6db8?ri18n=true
An Ohio public school has been giving students extra credit for watching videos from PragerU, a right-wing website that produces clips of talking heads such as Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro discussing conservative viewpoints, HuffPost has learned.
The PragerU videos — with titles such as “Build the Wall,” “Why the Right Was Right” and “The Left Ruins Everything” — were assigned to a 10th-grade history class at Maumee High School, along with a series of questions about the videos’ “most important messages.”
The assignment came at the same time that the website has tried to gain further influence in K-12 classrooms. Earlier this month, the organization launched a program directly aimed at parents and educators, complete with study guides with sections such as “Conservatives Are the Real Environmentalists” and “The Ferguson Lie,” based on a HuffPost review of the materials.
More at the link: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...prageru_n_5f889a29c5b6e9e76fbb6db8?ri18n=true
that's a fecking disgrace
but the bit "Conservatives Are the Real Environmentalists” made me laugh so hard that i farted
Remind me to never go to a comedy show with you.
yes, i'll definitely shart
Limmy on the money, as usual.
I didn't know we had a "pronouns day".
The users stuff is interesting(Same applies in the US as well from the research I've seen)
As for the view of voters, doesn't voting patterns go against this study ?
It's well and good for the British public to say they are in the centre or agree on issues such as climate change but its useless when 40% are voting for far right projects such as Brexit and a Tory government that talks about the danger of lefty lawyers and cultural Marxists. People will almost all the time see themselves as "centre ground" no matter what their political actions are.
(ideology, sniff sniff and so on).
Last edited:
The feminists are really not happy with women being referred to as people who menustrate or birthing people by medical agencies. I guess it might be one of the things giving rise to "Terfness".
The nerve! I imagine their top officials giggling among each other while reading the reactions.
I think North Korea's review is even better
How do people feel about this. Yay or nay? It seems to be about banning the word black in lectures and textbooks where it has negative connotations such as "Blackmail", "blacklist, "black sheep of the family" and "black market". In this case I'm feelings are, well why not if we can use different words with the same meaning without negative connections to skin pigmentation.
The link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/28/students-want-black-banned-textbooks-lectures/
In case you meet a paywall I'll just copy/paste the article as it isn't very long.
"
Students want the word 'black' banned from textbooks and lectures
Manchester University undergraduates say using the colour as an adjective is stemmed in 'colonial history' and is now outdated"
University students have demanded the word "black" be banned from lectures and textbooks amid claims it symbolises "negative situations".
Undergraduates at the University of Manchester say the colour's use as an adjective is stemmed in "colonial history", which has become outdated in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Supporters are calling for commonly used phrases such as "black sheep" to be removed from lecture slides and books, while concerns have also been raised about "blackmail" and "black market" during a student union-led audit of racism concerns on campus.
The University said it is preparing to roll out new training and research in response to the unease in order to tackle “racist terminology” and “aggressions”.
In documents seen by The Telegraph,those studying at the red brick institution called for: “The university to ban the use of these words listed above and any other use of the word ‘black’ as an adjective to express negative connotations.”
This is because black is “linguistically and metaphorically associated with negative situations” and “used for bad and unsavoury situations or objects”.
This is part of an “accepted consciousness” of using colours as adjectives that is “situated in colonial history”, the student report stated.
Students in the university's East African, Sudanese, Nigerian and Natural Hair societies canvassed for the report, claiming terms like “blacklist” and “whitelist” should be barred from any written communications.
This ban, they argue, should be imposed on university research papers, lecture slides, and books published by staff.
The University of Manchester, part of the elite Russell Group, has said in a report responding to student concerns that it will address language that is “divisive and not inclusive”.
A training programme is being developed based on the “findings on everyday aggressions” and “this will include the use of racist terminology”.
A spokesperson said: "Racism and discrimination have no place in our University, and all our community of students and staff have a right to expect that they will be treated equally and fairly and can work and study in a safe, secure and fulfilling environment."
The Race Matters report states the institution will consult on “appropriate language to ensure we embed inclusive linguistics into our values”.
However, the alleged “colonial” or racist etymologies of the common phrases which are to be addressed has been dismissed by experts.
Lexicographer Jonathon Green said the phrases were not borne from conscious racism. “An aspect of current identity politics has indeed claimed an etymology that simply wasn't there at the moment of coinage,” he said.
The negative connotations of the nursery rhyme staple black sheep may stem from the commercially less valuable wool of these rarer animals.
Blackmail is believed to have derived from bandits demanding extortion payments from victims near the Anglo-Scottish boundary between the 13th and 17th centuries."
The link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/11/28/students-want-black-banned-textbooks-lectures/
In case you meet a paywall I'll just copy/paste the article as it isn't very long.
"
Students want the word 'black' banned from textbooks and lectures
Manchester University undergraduates say using the colour as an adjective is stemmed in 'colonial history' and is now outdated"
University students have demanded the word "black" be banned from lectures and textbooks amid claims it symbolises "negative situations".
Undergraduates at the University of Manchester say the colour's use as an adjective is stemmed in "colonial history", which has become outdated in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Supporters are calling for commonly used phrases such as "black sheep" to be removed from lecture slides and books, while concerns have also been raised about "blackmail" and "black market" during a student union-led audit of racism concerns on campus.
The University said it is preparing to roll out new training and research in response to the unease in order to tackle “racist terminology” and “aggressions”.
In documents seen by The Telegraph,those studying at the red brick institution called for: “The university to ban the use of these words listed above and any other use of the word ‘black’ as an adjective to express negative connotations.”
This is because black is “linguistically and metaphorically associated with negative situations” and “used for bad and unsavoury situations or objects”.
This is part of an “accepted consciousness” of using colours as adjectives that is “situated in colonial history”, the student report stated.
Students in the university's East African, Sudanese, Nigerian and Natural Hair societies canvassed for the report, claiming terms like “blacklist” and “whitelist” should be barred from any written communications.
This ban, they argue, should be imposed on university research papers, lecture slides, and books published by staff.
The University of Manchester, part of the elite Russell Group, has said in a report responding to student concerns that it will address language that is “divisive and not inclusive”.
A training programme is being developed based on the “findings on everyday aggressions” and “this will include the use of racist terminology”.
A spokesperson said: "Racism and discrimination have no place in our University, and all our community of students and staff have a right to expect that they will be treated equally and fairly and can work and study in a safe, secure and fulfilling environment."
The Race Matters report states the institution will consult on “appropriate language to ensure we embed inclusive linguistics into our values”.
However, the alleged “colonial” or racist etymologies of the common phrases which are to be addressed has been dismissed by experts.
Lexicographer Jonathon Green said the phrases were not borne from conscious racism. “An aspect of current identity politics has indeed claimed an etymology that simply wasn't there at the moment of coinage,” he said.
The negative connotations of the nursery rhyme staple black sheep may stem from the commercially less valuable wool of these rarer animals.
Blackmail is believed to have derived from bandits demanding extortion payments from victims near the Anglo-Scottish boundary between the 13th and 17th centuries."
I’ve always assumed that the pejorative use of black was a fairly ancient fear of darkness/night vs day/light. Nothing to do with skin tone.
In fact, the racist isssue here - in my opinion - isn’t about black sheep or black mail it’s about the way people with African heritage were all lumped together as “black” when they really have skin tones which are variations of brown. A colonial linguistic decision which was presumably inluenced by the long established negative associations with the colour black.
Too late to unpick all of that, though, so maybe being a bit more careful about language will help? Language evolves all the time so not much point getting precious about it.