Clear critical analysis of 'woke' culture

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer Where do you get these views from mate?

Practical reality. 

[Ulax]

@mr_engineer As in what you've seen with your own eyes?

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer As in what you've seen with your own eyes?

Yupp. 

[Ulax]

@mr_engineer With your own eyes, you've seen that the government destroyed small businesses in the pandemic by using lockdowns, and the woke commies supported that?

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer With your own eyes, you've seen that the government destroyed small businesses in the pandemic by using lockdowns, and the woke commies supported that?

Yupp. 

The woke people went full SJW on people who didn't want to wear masks, who wanted to breathe freely and who wanted to keep their bodily autonomy. 

The mistake they made is that they thought they were supporting 'democracy', except that the fact that protests were outlawed meant that democracy was thrown out the window. And they ended up supporting an authoritarian regime. It was unconscious behavior in a pattern. But, this is the actual reality of what they did. 

[Ulax]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

Yupp. 

The woke people went full SJW on people who didn't want to wear masks, who wanted to breathe freely and who wanted to keep their bodily autonomy. 

The mistake they made is that they thought they were supporting 'democracy', except that the fact that protests were outlawed meant that democracy was thrown out the window. And they ended up supporting an authoritarian regime. It was unconscious behavior in a pattern. But, this is the actual reality of what they did. 

@mr_engineer What should they have done instead?

[mr_engineer]

9 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer What should they have done instead?

People who are 'for democracy' should have become suspicious of the narrative when the protests were outlawed. And, from that point on, they should not have become the police foot-soldiers for an authoritarian regime. In terms of censorship, in terms of bureaucracy, in terms of vax-mandates. They should have said 'No, government, we will not do your bidding, because our principles of democracy matter more to us than survival. We will not let you become authoritarian. We will rely on herd-immunity, which also gets destroyed by lockdowns, we will not buy your social-distancing narrative.' If you're genuinely for democracy, that is. 

This is what the anti-vaxxers did. Through everything, through all of the tyranny and oppression. They fought for democracy while the woke people fought to kill it. 

By all means, if you want to wear a mask, wear a mask. If you want to social-distance, social-distance. If you want to get the vax, get the vax. But, the government should lose all rights to govern you if they outlaw protests. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by mr_engineer

[Ulax]

@mr_engineer Why do you think lockdown measures went against democracy?

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer Why do you think lockdown measures went against democracy?

Social gatherings not allowed, protests not allowed. Peaceful protest is a fundamental right of a citizen of every democracy. When you outlaw that, you're saying 'We will not have a peaceful conversation, we will only talk to you in terms of brute-force'. Authoritarianism 101. Should make anyone suspicious of the narrative. 

[Ulax]

@mr_engineer Why do you say peaceful protest is a fundamental right of a citizen of every democracy?

[mr_engineer]

14 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@mr_engineer Why do you say peaceful protest is a fundamental right of a citizen of every democracy?

A democracy, by definition, is a government that's by the people, of the people and for the people. The people in charge get their position knowing fully well that it's 'by the people', meaning, they're democratically elected representatives by the people. 

Now, how are they taken out of office in a democracy?! Peaceful protests. You abuse your power, the people say 'We oppose you, resign now'. Entire governments collapse like this. This is how it's supposed to work!! Government is supposed to yield to the will of the people, the people are acknowledged to have the right to do this in a democracy. And, when people gather together, band together and speak unanimously, that's it. Protest is a constitutional right in a democracy. 

But, if you are able to trick the people into agreeing to outlaw protest, you're not a democratically elected leader anymore. You're there by fiat, by force. By trickery and by gaslighting. This is an abuse of power, it's psychological manipulation. It's a psy-op, in fact. Now, the woke people may agree with the content of the actions. But, it is very unprincipled and low-integrity to want to change the structure of the system to get your way. It's cheating, from the perspective of someone who values democracy. And it sets a bad precedent, a new low in politics in general. 

Don't be so serious in your partisanship, that you destroy democracy in the process. The right is also guilty of this, but you are also guilty of this. And, it would be wise of you to figure this out for yourself before pointing fingers at others. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by mr_engineer

[something_else]

@mr_engineer what could be better in the middle of a pandemic than karen and her entire church group of 200 people crammed together protesting in the middle of a city

dont see anything that could go wrong there

no risk of death at all

/s

I also don’t even think protests were exclusively outlawed. Public social gatherings were outlawed because it’s a fucking pandemic!!! twisting that as “outlawing protests” is intellectually dishonest

[mr_engineer]

39 minutes ago, something_else said:

I also don’t even think protests were exclusively outlawed. Public social gatherings were outlawed because it’s a fucking pandemic!!! twisting that as “outlawing protests” is intellectually dishonest

Say, there's an authoritarian, psychopathic leader who wants to control and take over the world. Would they say 'I want to take away protest-rights' explicitly in this world, where people have been educated into believing that they live in a democracy?! No, right?! They would invent a crisis, they would take on the role of 'saving the world from this crisis' and they would ask the world to give up some freedoms in return. 

This has been steadily happening throughout history. Up until this point, where they attacked our right to protest. They got their police lap-dogs to violently crack down on peaceful protests. Like the Nazis who were 'just following orders'. Not realizing what they're doing to democracy. 

[something_else]

@mr_engineer Or, hear me out, large public gatherings are a public health hazard in a pandemic that would result in the deaths of thousands of people. So many governments stopped them.

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, something_else said:

@mr_engineer Or, hear me out, large public gatherings are a public health hazard in a pandemic that would result in the deaths of thousands of people. So many governments stopped them.

My point is that you don't get to justify this and say that you're for democracy. 

The reality is that the average person is so invisible to the elite of the first-world that the elite is just unreachable through any medium. Outright protesting is the only way to do it. In fact, the people should have the right to collapse the government through peaceful protesting and sloganeering, when the government attacks their body-sovereignty. And the government is so unreachable, the power-disparity is so huge, that genuine checks and balances are absolutely out of the question. Lobbying is an open secret, revolving-doors are an open secret. People should be able to take a stand when it affects them. Especially their health. No 'experts' should have the right to dictate terms to you. The government is answerable to the people, not to 'experts'. 

[zurew]

4 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

My point is that you don't get to justify this and say that you're for democracy. 

"democracy is when you let people to be deadly infection bombs running around in public in large gatherings"

Edited January 11, 2023 by zurew

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, zurew said:

"democracy is when you let people to be deadly infection bombs running around in public in large gatherings"

Enforce masks if you want. But, social-distancing should not have been forced. That's anti-democratic. 

Again, you have the right to socially distance if you want. Feel free to isolate yourself! Forcing others to do it is a sin. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by mr_engineer

[Rafael Thundercat]

51 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Enforce masks if you want. But, social-distancing should not have been forced. That's anti-democratic. 

Again, you have the right to socially distance if you want. Feel free to isolate yourself! Forcing others to do it is a sin. 

Truth is, you only are able to be ranting all around here, because You Survived. Death people can't argument online. Hope to see you here after the next wave.

 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

But, social-distancing should not have been forced. That's anti-democratic. 

No its not, your definition of democracy is very flawed, because the logical extension of your definition is that even if people have ebola or even more dangerous and infectious diseases they can just run around in public and tell others "just go home dude if you don't want to catch my disease". If you have a dangerous disease  the minimum you can do is to isolate yourself from others and you don't get to say to others to do this and that when you are the one who are limiting everyone.

No, you are living in a society and if you want to participate in that society you have certain resposibilities that you have to fulfill.

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

Again, you have the right to socially distance if you want. Feel free to isolate yourself! Forcing others to do it is a sin.

Its only a sin in your mind if you are thinking about these problems in a very selfish and 1 dimensional way. Social distancing statistically worked, and its interesting that you want to talk about morality and sin, when you would have proposed a "solution" where you would have let covid run through everyone, kill a bunch of people, flood hospitals with people, break down the medical system everywhere and then at the end of that you can shout that "finally we achieved herd immunity". 

[mr_engineer]

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

No its not, your definition of democracy is very flawed, because the logical extension of your definition is that even if people have ebola or even more dangerous and infectious diseases they can just run around in public and tell others "just go home dude if you don't want to catch my disease". If you have a dangerous disease  the minimum you can do is to isolate yourself from others and you don't get to say to others to do this and that when you are the one who are limiting everyone.

No, you are living in a society and if you want to participate in that society you have certain resposibilities that you have to fulfill.

Mob-mentality begets mob-mentality from the other side. 

43 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its only a sin in your mind if you are thinking about these problems in a very selfish and 1 dimensional way. Social distancing statistically worked, and its interesting that you want to talk about morality and sin, when you would have proposed a "solution" where you would have let covid run through everyone, kill a bunch of people, flood hospitals with people, break down the medical system everywhere and then at the end of that you can shout that "finally we achieved herd immunity". 

You don't know these things would've happened, because they didn't happen. 

When they come up with a trick to destroy democracy, you should be skeptical of what they're saying. Because there are very real payoffs to them to destroy democracy. 

I'm talking about what actually happened, not an imagined scenario that you 'prevented'. Maybe the cure was worse than the disease. 

Edited January 11, 2023 by mr_engineer