Liron
NobodyThere are different kinds of woke. Some woke is toxic. Some woke is just paying attention.
There is also "left woke" and "right woke".
"Left woke" is hating all white people because "all white people are racist".
"Right woke" is hating all trans people because some trans people are opposed to free speech.
@Nobody @timmy well no, not really. Remember how we said applying definitions to words that don't mean those things is bad? You did that with your entire comment. "Woke" as it's used today has a real origin in social justice movements. It literally means seeing through the bullshit that you've been sold your entire life that "this is just how the world is" even though the world as it is right now is extremely harmful to anyone who isn't a straight white dude. That's not an indictment of straight white dudes, that's just who most of the systems of the world are designed to benefit, and they don't have to be. The right didn't like that they would have to have equal footing with people of other races, genders, religions, etc. so they took the word and artificially ascribed it to anything they don't like. Literally anything. They're using it wrong and so are you. And trans people don't wanna limit free speech, they wanna not be violently harassed. There's a huge difference
As for straight white dudes, the system is designed to fuck us as well.
It is designed to benefit the tiny population of psychopaths, who do the violence, and the sociopaths who are the politicians.
Cops, soldiers, bankers, politicians.
Masters.
And yes, many trans people want to make it actually illegal to, for example, call them something they don't like. Kinda like if other people wanted to outlaw the word "cis" because it is insulting.
You can not like things that people say or believe. Doesn't give you the right to enslave or to murder them.
@Nobody @timmy trans people not wanting to be misgendered is not a bad thing and lumping that in with the rest of this conversation is really showing your whole ass.
As for the rest, you clearly have class consciousness but you don't have any other kind of consciousness, like race or gender consciousness. Those things are all linked. You cannot win the class war without understanding how the class system affects people of different races/genders/religions/etc. differently and more harshly than it currently does for straight white dudes.
Not wanting to be misgendered is not abnormal. Or bad.
Wanting to respond to misgendering or other trivial insults with violence is abnormal, and bad.
Well, wanting to is probably not abnormal. I'd certainly like to punch the people who call me a Nazi because I don't want a government at all. I just don't do it. Because I have a conscience. And I dont' advocate for the bullyboys of government to do it for me, either.
Words can certainly precede violence. But there is a clear line between violating the rights of others and not violating the rights of others.
You can hate me. it does not violate my rights, and I will not respond with violence.
If, however, you bring violence against me, I will do everything in my power to bring some back, faster and better than you brought yours.
That is the line.
Words are words, and the appropriate response is words.
Violence is violence, and the appropriate response is violence.
Except when the government brings violence, because they can murder you for anything or for nothing and none of the sheep will give a single fuck.
@Nobody @timmy the appropriate response to anything is based on much more than just "words are words". Some words are mean but not harmful to a specific group of people. Some words only harm specific people. The appropriate response is whatever the minimum required escalation to stop the harmful behavior is. If words can do that, then by all means. But nobody with a brain would call someone a bad person for punching a Nazi, even though without giving a shit about religious consciousness that "Heil Hitler" is just words and the Nazi salute is just an arm motion. The attempt to perpetuate hateful violence should be met with whatever force is necessary to quell it.
@Nobody @timmy you frame it as if one person would be the leader. While historically that would make sense when attached to the word dictatorship, the actual phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" means literally everyone is in charge and everyone has a say. It's the ultimate form of democracy. The people at the bottom are the ones who make all the decisions until everyone is on equitable terms with everyone else and therefore there no longer is a bottom. The eventual goal of Communism is a stateless classless moneyless society AKA anarchism
And why are 3,000 tyrants one mile away better than 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away?
It is a group of people that wants to control my life. As I am not a conformist, I do not want what most people want. So a system where the majority has the power to abuse the minority any way they want ( e.g. Nazi Germany or the USSR ) is not a good system for me.
But you do you ... I think that Pinochet should have refrained from throwing people out of helicotors, and should have, instead, flown them to Cuba and returned with a planeload of refugees.
Let the communists live the the communist places, the fascists live in the fascist places, and the liberty lovers live in the free places.
There is enough earth for everybody.
Except that every inch of the earth is claimed by some government that will murder you if you try to ignore them.
So we gotta get rid of that, someplace.
I agree about anarchism ... much better than Democracy, because the minority can defend itself from the majority ...
But if there is fascism somewhere on earth, that is fine with me. I want to have someplace to put fascists who tried to impose fascism on my community, and prison is worse than murder.
So let some country be a theocracy, and deport the theocrats there.
Let some other country be fascist, and deport the fascists there.
Let another be communist, and deport the fascists there.
And let still another be anarchy, and deport the anarchists there.
I think they are socialists because there are two options: free markets, and socialism ... socialism being defined as a system where command and control is the organizing principle of socieety.
In a free market, the government would not have the power to tell companies that they could not hire Jews. In a socialist "market" they would.
Ownership is defined as "the right to exclude others".
if the government can exclude you from your property, but you cannot exclude them from it, they own "your property", and you do not.
@Nobody @timmy you've absolutely proven that you don't understand the meanings of a single word you just said. The Nazis are not socialists. The Nazis are fascists. Learn what fascism actually means, and then look at their policy decisions. They called themselves socialists before they made it into power because a war-torn post WWI Germany was extremely sympathetic towards socialist policy
There is something to be said for that thought.
When any system becomes excessively authoritarian, it tends to suffer from certain failures which are the same on left and right.
If you watched footage of the Soviets and the Nazis, with all the emblems on their uniforms blurred out, you would be hard pressed to tell which was which.