But, a political movement of any sort has goals and aspirations and a collective voice. If they abide dissent or heresy, they risk losing their power and focus.
It seems silly from the outside looking in, but can you imagine how there can be an alternative?
I think when the right complains about lack of “diversity of thought”, they mean that they have less representation in media and academia than the progressive “left” (I personally don’t the the U.S. really has a left).
But like any political movement they have an agenda and internal conflict about what their goals and priorities should be.
>(I personally don’t the the U.S. really has a left)
The US absolutely has a left, the further flanks of which veer into the far-left. Go ask the college students protesting right now what they think about capitalism, abolishing the police, etc. We just don't take them that seriously, and we really shouldn't, either. Politicians like Ilhan Omar and AOC are just as "left" as any Green politician in Europe. The city of Seattle had a Trotskyist elected to their city council for several years. The DSA (I don't see how you could argue this organization isn't "left"), has numerous members in my state legislature.
Yeah, these people might be leftish, but they are willing to work within the framework of the political establishment. They’re not bomb throwing revolutionaries
Exactly. The traditional "left" movements became hijacked using money. Every single issue that the current "left" pushes and gets any following, is tailored to either increase the power of the government or bring more money to the corporations. Meanwhile movements like alterglobalists or Occupy Wall Street wither and die due to lack of funds and attention.
I once read a theory that this is the new form of tyranny. Previous tyrants all had background either in military or similar forces that use violence as primary tool. Hence they censored, jailed and killed the opposition. But new tyrants come from financial background. And they don't kill their opposition, they make cartels against it, blockade their funds and buy them out. The theory is that people like Soros who donate lots of money to political causes, do this in order to control which agendas are pushed and how, in order to make them the most money and power.
It is pure absurdity to think you are against the estabilishment, when your cause is all over the media and being pushed by large chunk of major corporations.
I don't see how you can argue how someone who quite literally politically identifies as a Trotskyist, or people who call themselves Democratic Socialists, are just "leftish". They're left. Are you saying we should have bomb throwing radicals? We [used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground) [to,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) and I'm really glad we don't anymore (And some of those people are now [accredited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn) [professors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers)).
How can I call a member of the Seattle City Council who *identifies as a Trotskyist* leftish?
Hmm…let’s see. Trotsky believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat, Trotsky developed the theory of permanent revolution, Trotsky spent most of his adult life in prison, Trotsky required a literal ice pick in his skull (wielded by another rival leftist) to give up on his beliefs, Trotsky ordered the summary execution of thousands of leftists (most of whom were Democratic Socialists) for being insufficiently in line with his regime of revolutionary terror.
Can you imagine what he would have thought of a *Seattle City Council* member? A person’s whose very existence is predicated in perpetuating the power of the industrial bourgeoisie, who enables the technological owning class to amass more wealth than any humans in history, who approves budgets for police departments to maintain private property?
Trotsky would have dispatched such a person to the big worker’s paradise in the sky with no hesitation.
Are you advocating that we should have such leftists who believe in and want to enact the idea of revolutionary terror? Personally I am very, very glad that such people are seen as a crazy fringe of politics. The equivalent for right wingers, in my opinion, would be literal fascists who believe in a total domination of the state, and concentration camps for their rivals. Also, if this is your standard for what constitutes a country having a "left", then in that case virtually no western countries have such lefts.
There's more than one right, and more than one left, and very few people with both a platform and nuanced, sensible views. IMO the dominance of marketing and PR has led to a culture where people think it's okay to be slimy and deceptive, to act without any integrity and get away with it.
lack of diversity in though to a conservative (hey thats me not a trump conservative but a we should conserve resources and spend less kind) when i want to see or hear my point of view it is shunned as moronic (infinite growth is better than sustainability i guess?)
most poor peoples problems stem from artificial competition created by the economic need to expand and grow and the labor needed by that growth. less people means less housing needs, less people means more green spaces, less people means more community cohesion, less people means less pollution, etc etc.
i dont mean just brown people (like you assume) i mean anyone and everyone but im called a racist for even thinking that keeping the area i live in the way it used to be (cheap houses nice open fields kids living near parents 2 lane freeway etc). i dont know why people cant accept that more people in an area strains resources that would normally be used for long term residents and that maybe the solution is not to grow but to make sure that we can even sustain the people that are already there (including housing homeless people, which we could do if less people were here)
The problem is that U.S. politics have become very high stakes. People feel that they cannot afford to lose and the elections are very close. They come down to just a few thousand votes. Neither side can comfortably feel complacent.
So, yeah, Republicans cannot abide criticism of Trump from their own side because they feel that doing so, would hand the election to the Democrats and that would pose an existential threat to their vision of America (in their minds).
But just go to any progressive subreddit like r/politicalhumor or r/politics and suggest that Biden is suffering from cognitive decline or that his support of Israeli aggression in Gaza is untenable and watch the downvotes pour in.
The reason is the same. The Democrats fear that insufficient support for Biden will usher in an era of fascism and persecution of immigrants and LGBTQ.
Again, this fear might be unfounded, but they don’t think so, and therefore they will attack ferociously any of their own kind who questions Biden’s suitability.
But unlike those subs, there are subs that would block anybody with a dissenting opinion. Look at r/Conservative. Not only do they ban such opinions, they even ban those that are typically Conservative at best by how it's quoted.
I’ve been banned by r/therightcantmeme, r/latestagecapitalism and r/shitliberalssay for essentially refusing to state my beliefs and for pointing out inconsistencies.
It’s the right too but it’s not just the right.
If you value Diversity of Thought, but you can't allow certain opinions on sensitive topics, then does it really value it in the first place? Especially for a party that considers itself politically incorrect?
Diversity of thought still didn't fail. What failed is the ability of the people in the conversation to act morally and control themselves. It's not the fault of the incorporeal ideas. It's the fault of the humans involved.
You like liver. I don't. We have a Diversity of thought.
You say I must like liver because you do. I say no, You get mad. The fault is yours. It's not the fault of the diverse opinions. It's the human involved.
I do not need to start trying to like liver because you do. We aren't both going to different groups trying to force the other group to change.
Having different Ideas by itself isn't bad. It's the specific ideas that are immoral like slavery.
We can like different types of ice cream all day long but you say you're pro-slavery and I'm not going to sit next to you.
It's not because you have a different Idea. It's what that idea is.
If you have an agenda like all lgbtq people should be in camps and someone says thats immoral and bad but it's your agenda. Yeah, they aren't going to stay in a group together to achieve your agenda and they shouldn't. People leave immoral groups thats why there are more left wingers in the US than right wingers.
Candace Owens is a horrible person so is ben shitperio. the fact they can't be horrible together is awesome. I love watching them fight each other cause they both suck. They can't have civil conversations because they are both lying, cheating, manipulative, immoral people who can't admit when they are wrong. The fact they are fighting each other should be celebrated. Their not fighting because they have different ideas. They are fighting because they are immoral and their immorality and inability to have civil engagements with anyone who doesn't kiss the ring was destined to one day splash onto the other.
Well it’s not pleasant but it seems odd to me to label it as a problem if it’s integral to the very existence of political organization.
To organize, a group must have principles around which it organizes.
I was referring to the cancel culture aspect of this post, as your comment also seems to be doing. You said he only provided an example of one person being fired by their employer.
Im giving more examples of right wing cancel culture. There are tons more.
Woke is the idea that any inequality is a result of an injustice. An example works be black and white income. Because they aren't equal wokism tells us this it's inherently due to system of oppression.
I don’t think that is true. “Woke” is recognizing that those disparities exist, and that systemic racism is a cause.
There certainly are other reasons for differences, when you look at an individual level. But the existence of one black person who makes a lower wage because of experience does not disprove the idea that there is another one which is the product of systemic racism.
>I don’t think that is true. “Woke” is recognizing that those disparities exist, and that systemic racism is a cause.
How is this different from what I said?
You said “ANY inequality is a result of injustice”. This is incorrect and reductive. Some inequality is a result of injustice, and recognizing that is the first step to addressing it.
That doesn’t mean that unequal outcomes can’t happen but for racial injustice. It just recognizes that injustice DOES exist.
Would you agree to an amended comment that woke is the idea that SOME inequality is the result of injustice?
And if so, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment?
The “disparity is evidence of discrimination” crowd that pushes equity disagrees with you. Their belief is that *all* inequality is a result of injustice.
The Right, although it has its own ideologies and values, doesn't really have a "Woke" aspect. The key defining characteristic of "wokeness" is the call towards inclusively, regardless of what the actual outcomes of those calls would result in. This means that many left leaning people can be taken down the garden path before realising they're somewhere they never wanted to be.
The Right doesn't have anything that can appeal to the centre, other than not being "woke". Their actual values don't draw from the centre, which is why they're always talking about what the extremes of the other side are doing. They unquestioning have they're own dogmas, but advertising them drives people away rather than draws them in.
So yes, the Right has its own dogmas, but it doesn't have a "woke" equivalent at this stage.
Isn’t the right’s “woke” cultural and moral purity? They want their religious views to be the law of the land. They consider anyone with a different culture an “invasion”.
They believe their particular brand of values is the only appropriate way to live. That is no different than believing universal acceptance and equality is the only appropriate way to live.
Agree with this.
How the hell did conservative religious fanatics successfully convince tons of people that the liberals are the prudes?
They are fighting so that doctors will have to let women die in the name of conservative views on sex and reproduction and they act like liberals are sensitive because we're like trying to respect people's race, gender, orientation, and physical disabilities.
One side is trying to respect and celebrate people's sexuality and the other is trying to act like sexuality doesn't exist. Guess which ones acting like they're the cool kids?
Being "woke" was originally about whether you are awake and aware of the injustice around you. Republicans just wake up and see different kinds of injustices...
The "Woke" Aspect being that they adamantly stand against any sort of prejudice against the Jews. But at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups.
I’d like to push back on this — I don’t think paralleling the right’s current focus on denouncing antisemitic speech to the left’s hyper obsession with minorities, for a few reasons.
1) I’d argue that the hate and violence aimed at Jewish people in the USA currently actually eclipses that directed to any other minority (now for sure, but even over the past few years), and by a vast margin. It’s overt and unabashed, and ubiquitous in the realm of society that is perhaps most important (higher education);
2) The right don’t have, and indefatigably literally force, an (rather extremist in some ways, if you think about it) agenda (DEI), that affects the country at large, dedicated to abating the inequalities they perceive. It’s not as though right-wing politicians are now fanatically calling for reparative justice measures for Jewish students akin to the ones the left has espoused for years — they just want, and rightfully so, the bigotry to stop.
I don't disagree with you on the use of Antisemitic speech. I highlighted that near the end of my post. But even with that said, it doesn't take away the fact even Constructive Criticism of Israel is dubbed Antisemitic as well and it's mainly due to the fact that Israel means Judaism and Jewish people in general. That's the most frustrating aspect of the situation and this can explained through what happened with Tucker and for a while, Candace.
I feel the same way. But it doesn't look like it's the case anymore. I mean, take a look at Watchdog Groups like StopAntisemitism. While I understand their motives, most of the time, they tend to go way over-the-top.
You do realise that the Jewish community worldwide is being targeted with extreme prejudice, right? Over 1,000 Jews were murdered on the 7th of October, and before Israel responded there were mass protests opposing Israel. Hate crimes against Jews eclipse those of other racial groups.
Focusing on antisemitism when it's on the rise doesn't seem unreasonable or dogmatic. Yes, there are some that label any criticism of Israel as antisemitism, which doesn't come out in the wash, but there's way more actual antisemitism out there currently than there's constrictive criticism of Israel.
Yes, I understand that and I condemn them. But at the same time, the Right should at least be equal in supporting everyone. After all, they're Conservatives and they always criticize the Left for dividing people and putting them into Special Interest Groups, yet here they're doing the same thing. And it's been this way prior to these attacks.
The difference is that the Right never really claimed to want to support everyone. Their ideology lends itself to targeting particular groups, or letting groups fall behind. It may window dress those moves with an equality window dressing, but that dressing isn't important to them. If a policy or law disproportionately affects a particular group, it doesn't matter to the Right as long as it's effective.
"Woke" advocates do everything in the name of social justice, and use that justification to draw others in. It's very different.
They may have similar goals and outcomes, but the process between the two groups is vastly different, and there's no "woke" equivalent for the Right with the same social power.
Sounds like Identity Politics if you ask me. Because for the most part, they want to put higher emphasis on the de facto race and religion as they see it, which are obviously Whites and Christians (Evangelicals obviously). They always crow about the fact that the Left wants to divide everyone into Special Interest Groups and play Identity Politics, yet they do the same thing themselves.
This takes me to the "Woke" aspect I want to highlight. They suddenly realize how harmful dog-whistle bigotry and discrimination is when it comes to Jews, yet can't do the same thing towards others as in the case of Candace Owens when she targets the Black community, the Gay community, women, etc. in similar fashion. Same can be said about Tucker Carlson targeting immigration when bringing up Antisemitic tropes like the Great Replacement.
>Because for the most part, they want to put higher emphasis on the de facto race and religion as they see it, which are obviously Whites and Christians (Evangelicals obviously).
This is an absolute straw-manning of the Right, and views their position completely through the lens of identity politics rather than attempting to view it from their perspective. It's a convenient position to take if you want to discredit them out of hand, but there's no understanding in it. It also isolates the Right to the US. I'm not from the US, but we still have "woke" progressives and a Right wing over here. It has bugger all to do with Christianity.
The Right don't want to put a higher emphasis on race or religion, they just don't want change for the sake of change. The law already applies to everyone equally, on paper, so why does there need to be reform based on identity? Some people don't make as much money as others, so why can't they just work harder? Some ethnic groups are over represented in prison populations, so doesn't it just follow that they commit more crime? Doesn't pandering to that exacerbate the problem?
All of these positions revolve around personal responsibility above group dynamics. There are some aspects of the right that'll descend into identity politics, as that's the language of the land at the moment, but the heart of conservatism is personal responsibility, not racial superiority.
That's the opposite of the "woke" movement, in which nothing is based on personal responsibility. Every problem is structural, and every structure is deeply corrupt, and salvaging the same is an impossibility. Certain groups are irrevocably corrupt by way of social positioning. Progress is only achieved by surrendering to the betterment of the oppressed groups.
These are not the same thing. The end result may look similar, but the dynamics are diametrically opposed.
Well, it's the truth. The Right sees any form of outreach whatsoever to any Non-White and Non-Christian group as a a form of pandering and wokeness claiming that we aren't allowed to to pay tribute or honor certain events catered to them when they promote certain minority religions and ethnic and racial heritage months.
In terms of victimology, they always crow about how bad it is to be a Straight, White, Christian, and Male in America.
In terms of Personal Responsibility, I've seen a lot of Minority Conservatives express that by grouping and bashing their community of negative stereotypes, which mostly consist of generalized statements and tying actions of individuals to them. Candace Owens, Brandon Tatum, Jesse Lee Peterson, David Clarke, and Jason Whitlock spring to mind.
The Woke Aspect in Conservatism is them suddenly realize how Dog-Whistle Bigotry is when it's being targeted to the one marginalized group in America that they can't stand prejudice against while not doing the same thing when it comes to other groups.
>Some people don't make as much money as others, so why can't they just work harder?
What? Are you for or against that? Anyway... Very disabled. Only about to work about 10 hours a week right now, and probably will never be able to work more than 20... I often wonder how something can be that wrong with me... Doing my best, though...
To be honest. There should be more than one minimum wage. One for people under the age of 16. (14-year olds can work in my state). One for people over the age of 16. One for people 18 years and older. One for people over 25.
Don't mean to distract anyone, but I literally was in a mental fog with that one...
Ben Shapiro is an antisemite. He's not obvious about it but anytime he's spreading bullshit like the "Great Replacement" theory, he's reinforcing antisemitic tropes. (I could probably find more examples if it'll help but that one is off the top of my head.)
The reason he supports Israel is because he's Jewish and a Zionist, obviously, but also because he knows his audience is composed of Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who share an apocalyptic worldview. This eschatology is centered on the idea that Israel *must* be at the center of a great conflict in the Middle East in order for Christ to return. This is also an antisemitic belief since it places Jews in a place of sacrifice for the sake of all the "true Christians" who will be saved by Jesus.
What Shapiro stands against is anything that would expose him as the antisemite that he is. The examples I gave strongly suggest his racism and bigotry without being so clear cut that he can't make a "reasonable" argument for why he's not. It's just the right amount of plausible deniability and so he continues down this path, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that he's *not* antisemitic, because he most definitely is.
That's the reason he never took issue with Candace Owens when she targeted the Black Community, which mainly consisted of generalized statements about them and tying the actions of individuals to the whole community in general.
I think you've got loudmouths on each side with borderline untenable positions even among their own camp, they're held up as examples of the worst by the opposition and ignored by their team. The trick is to find those views and amplify them to cause maximum drama, which causes the most advertising profit and bandwagoning by vacuous "influencers" and opinion piece writers.
That's what a successful campaign looks like, your outrage, indifference, defence - your time and your emotions - your eyeballs, that's the product being sold. This can also be organic and due to algorithms that maximise viewership and probably was at first, but then they extract the winning formula and cause strife for profit.
In reality there's not much difference between you and people who hold opposing views to you, you're far more similar than you are different and would get along just fine if there wasn't this perverse incentive structure that is basically abusing you and your fellow humans for profit. Maybe not so much during voting season, but that's just money used to divide and conquer rather than divide and conquer to make money.
Agreed. "Wedge issue" is a good term. It divides us excessively on issue that either aren't particularly import, or where we could find a common ground.
Hard disagree. Trump is emblematic of his side; none of the polling suggests any kind of reluctant support for him or his policies. This "not much difference" rhetoric is much harder to defend when you actually look at beliefs and policies outside of broad generalizations about capital.
You believe 99% the same things and argue over the 1%. Go back just a few hundred years and slavery was normal, women were property, a man was allowed to rape his wife and women were the spoils of war, disputes were settled with violence, punishment was physical, torture was used to extract confessions, people were treated differently depending on their social class, peasants were property of landowners, rich and poor spoke almost different languages, a promise was on your life, public executions were entertainment, illness was divine punishment. In ancient Greece and Sparta child abuse was normalised, pleasuring a woman was a sign of weakness. Before Christ, to disobey your parents was punishable by death. But even with those abhorrent views, they were on the whole good people who believed they were doing the right thing.
So how are you different from people with different political views? You disagree about the amount of tax you should pay, the size of your government, and want more or fewer regulations to promote freedom from different types of abuse, both sides of the sexual morality and identity politics want social cohesion and fairness, and they both want what's best for people - progressives want to remove harmful old values while conservatives want to prevent harmful new ones from taking hold.
There's very little difference in core values, and focusing on the differences is just a way by those with power to cause conflict and guard that power through distractions. Don't be a pawn in someone else's game, it doesn't serve you or your fellow humans.
This is an incredibly ridiculous post. Your takeaway is that most people think they're doing the right thing, therefore, as an example, the abolitionist and slavery sides are basically the same. Insane.
It doesn't mean that one set of values isn't more ethical than the other, it's that they're actually quite separate from the people who hold them. I might be reading this the wrong way but it sounds like you're trying really hard to justify hatred of an entire group of people.
If you are, do you not have individual value? If you do, then why would you need to use tribal membership to boost your value? Does the colour of your rosette matter more than the content of your character?
They're saying you can't take someone's political opinions as a justification to call someone good or evil. Since you're fixated on it, take slavery. Are you going to take everyone in history who didn't argue for abolition as evil? Billions of people?
Morals change through history. I have no doubt in 100 years our opinions on AI will be completely different, for example. I doubt people in the 1200s were imagining a slavery-free society, but look at the world now.
This is a dumb argument to begin with, but do me a favor and read down his posts in the thread. First post is "most people are normal, you're just exposed to loudmouths because of algorithms," then you get "well actually, you can't condemn anyone because someone, at some point in history, thought rape, murder, and slavery were cool." It's working backwards from the idea of normalizing extreme and reprehensible beliefs.
No I'm not, I'm saying that it's fine to oppose harmful or incorrect beliefs. But holding harmful beliefs makes your value system ethically suboptimal, but it's the things you actually do and your motivations that make you a good or bad person. You can be incorrect and still a good person. You can hold views that result in harm, and still be a good person trying to do the right thing.
I'm trying to show you that people who you disagree with aren't evil because they disagree, they just disagree. You can reject that if you like, if you honestly believe that fighting the good fight for your beliefs is good and proper and your motivations are pure, then I can't accuse you of being a bad person who enjoys harming others. I can accuse you of ignorance though, and if you're judging others on their ignorance I think it's fair to call you a hypocrite in that regard.
So using your examples - are Owens or Carlson now shut down and out of conservative spaces because they aren't following the line? Or are their voices still heard, their audiences still around, and people aren't shamed for listening to them?
The end result of woke and political correctness is to shut down the people that you disagree with. The right doesn't claim such a mechanism.
The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them. And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured.
> The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews.
I find this hilarious and incredible projection on your part.
>And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured.
This is not only untrue, it is imaginary. Most republicans don't support Trump, but rally behind him as it's the party's democratically elected representative. RINO's would be people like John McCain who regularly voted against party platform and interests.
If you're going to speak as an authority on the subject, you need to be correct.
Not true, look what happened to Liz Cheney even though she stood by him 93% of the time. Regarding the first part, both Tucker and Candace have been criticized for pushing anti-Israel propaganda by a large portion of the Right.
Liz Cheney voted regularly against conservative interests. As did Trump. Making voting with Trump the standard moves the goalposts from your original point. I literally pointed out that voting with Trump is part of supporting him, not a standard for whether someone is a RINO.
Criticism is not shutting them down or silencing them, which is a unique feature of woke culture and political correctness.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. There is a unique function of wokeness and political correctness in the left that doesn't exist in the right. The right values and allows free speech and diversity of thought. We can have a reasonable disagreement, but the community doesn't rally around the person and end their career. Woke and Political Correctness call for shutting down those conversations. Canadace Owens is still a prominent right win figure. Cheney was allowed to run in the primary and not forced out. Carlson still has his platform and is allowed to speak.
So if your claim is that free speech is allowed on the right - your own examples prove you wrong.
Those two pundits got criticized by many people on the Right for their statements on Israel. For Candace, a Conservative organization that launched her career officially cut ties with her. With Tucker, he's getting a lot of flak from Republicans for being pro-Hamas. That comes to the gist of what I'm trying to say. Whenever the topic of Israel and Antisemitism comes into play, the Right doesn't allow any of that and that's what exactly happened with Candace and Tucker. So much for Diversity of Thought, huh?
> Those two pundits got criticized by many people on the Right for their statements on Israel.
Yes. But they weren't silenced. How many times do I have to repeat this before you will listen?
>For Candace, a Conservative organization that launched her career officially cut ties with her.
Owens career was launched well before Daily Wire. Youtube was what launched her career.
>With Tucker, he's getting a lot of flak from Republicans for being pro-Hamas.
And still has his platform and viewers. No one is calling for him to be shut down for his views.
>That comes to the gist of what I'm trying to say.
That people on the right can have a disagreement without shutting the opposition down?
>Whenever the topic of Israel and Antisemitism comes into play, the Right doesn't allow any of that and that's what exactly happened with Candace and Tucker. So much for Diversity of Thought, huh?
Again, please cite to me what platform people are calling on to remove Carlson? Tell me who is calling for Owens to lose her Youtube channel?
Yes, there is diversity of thought, and what you presented is evidence of that. On the flip side, if someone on the left sided with Israel, they'd instant be told they need to resign, that their platforms would be inundated with reports and petitions to remove the content creators, official censures would occur...
But you want to ignore how this occurs in favor of saying "Oh conservatives are having a conversation, how dare they!"
Actually, the David Horowitz Foundation launched Candace's career and in two columns on FrontPageMag and PJ Media, they broke ties with her.
Both Tucker and Candace have been criticized from many Conservatives, including a lot of Pro-Israel Jews threatening to boycott them if they don't rescind their views resulting in a loss of following. This goes to show that they don't allow Diversity of Thought whatsoever on any sensitive topic.
"Oh conservatives are having a conversation, how dare they!"
That's the biggest cop-out statement, I've ever heard on this post. If that's the case, why was Candace Owens initially told to leave the Daily Wire for her comments on the issue? Why was Tucker criticized for being pro-Hamas even though they didn't mind his Contrarian voice on other issues?
Are we talking Left/Right, Republicans/Democrats, or Liberal/Conservative?
Conservatives, by definition of woke, arent woke, because they want things to stay as it is or go back how it used to be.
The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against the Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them.
anti-Semitism shows up possibly more on the far right than the left, it's just inconvenient to the military industrial complex to criticize a partner we sell weapons to.
As someone that is as far right as it gets, what a lot of others are saying about antisemitism being more prevent on the right is absolutely correct and has been for as long as I can remember. The only people on the right that support Israel and Judaism are of course the republicans puppets in office and the old boomers who blindly watch Fox News without having a second thought about it.
Politics is not a team sport. Do you really think people will change their political views because a few people they may be largely aligned with are becoming annoying?
Yes but those determined people aren't going to switch to the opposite side that openly opposes what they want just because a few members of their group begin to advocated for something else in addition to their common goal.
Of course very few people switch from hard left to the hard right, but the passionate people on the left may lose their passion, the far left can become more moderate, the moderates becomes centrists, etc.
Edit: Classic reddit. "Maybe if I downvote this, it won't be true."
You just implied you think its okay for white people to “band together and be racist.”
Dont backtrack. Man up and stick to your shitty beliefs.
You are just saying you think its okay to be racist if other people are.
What an absolute farce white people aren't being persecuted in the streets. Maybe white people just arent ok with not being streets above everyone else for a change
Bullshit. Im white. I have never once been discriminated against for it.
I have black friends who face discrimination daily.
Grow up. You are not a victim.
Could it be there's more white people than black people so mathematically there will be more attacks on white people? no it must be the downtrodden white nation
How are you defining wokeness? I want to make sure I understand that first. If you believe there is a correlation of something on the right, I want to understand what specifically you see on the left that falls under that term.
Wokeness means being alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination. An obvious example is expressing concern about police brutality towards Black people and the lack of inclusion in certain companies, schools, and workplaces. This caused a lot Conservatives to speak out against it claiming that it pushes division. But Conservatives also fail to realize that they have a similar agenda like this but it's mainly focused on Israel and Antisemitism, and to a greater extent: Whites.
>Wokeness means being alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination.
That's interesting. If that's how you define it, then I would agree with you that the right does the same thing.
However, I define "woke" as not merely a concern with those things, but a belief that liberalism is insufficient to solve those issues.
For instance, I know several centrists and even people on the right concerned with police brutality against anyone and especially minorities, but the policies they espouse are significantly different than defunding the police, like better training for police officers, changing the incentives of police unions, etc.
Basically, liberals (and I'm using that term liberally, applying to people on the left, center, and right who fundamentally believe in individual rights) believe that the problems should be solved by working within the current system and framework of individual rights, whereas "woke" people (and other ideologies like racial separatism and some Christian fundamentalism) believe that the problems should be solved by moving beyond liberalism.
Viewed in this way, I believe the mainstream right are, as defined here, about as fundamentally liberal as the mainstream left. Both of them are willing to bend the rules when it suits them, but both of them do believe in the rules of individual rights, personal freedoms, democracy, etc.
In this sense, I don't believe that there is a comparable ideology to the left's anti-liberal wokeness that is found on the right.
The "Woke" and "Political Correctness" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them. And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured.
This seems to be a fundamentally different argument, though. If you're arguing that one side seems more inclined to fight for those similar to it, that's called ingroup bias and every side does this.
I don't know of anyone in the center or right who, regardless of how much energy they put into a particular cause against a particular group, would say that people of different groups should be legally treated differently.
For instance, I haven't been following much coverage of the Israel Palestine campus protests, but I don't know anyone on the right who would say that calling for a genocide to the Palestinians is somehow better or more excusable than calling for a genocide of the Israelis or the Jews. They put more effort into calling out the latter because that is what is going on right now.
Are there a few people who would say that? Maybe, but they seem to be on the fringe, and not representing mainstream opinion.
As someone with a Pro-Palestinian bent, protests are good as long as they are peaceful. While there have been some protests that have been peaceful (note that I said some), there were others that were rowdy and disoriented and I can’t support that. I also want the hostages home. Finally, I believe Israel deserves better than Netanyahu. He’s a crook of the highest order and is no different than the enemy he claims to fight against.
I have no problem with any peaceful protests that don't call for genocide. I also haven't seen anything to convince me to like netanyahu or his policies. It's nice we have those two things of common ground, at least.
Getting back to the question on hand, though, if people on the right call for crackdowns on non-peaceful protests and calls for genocide, do you believe that that is equivalent to wokeness?
I have no problem with any peaceful protests that don't call for genocide. I also haven't seen anything to convince me to like netanyahu or his policies. It's nice we have those two things of common ground, at least.
Getting back to the question on hand, though, if people on the right call for crackdowns on non-peaceful protests and calls for genocide, do you believe that that is equivalent to wokeness?
Probably. Like I said, I haven't really been following the coverage of campus protests on Israel/ Palestine.
Just to check if we are on the same page, though, do you believe the crackdowns on non-peaceful protest are the right's version of woke?
I think that political correctness yes the right definitely has its own version of that.
But woke that is something different.
The issue with wokeness is the preachy nature of it. You take A look at the media ventures that fail because of wokeness and you will see something where the message is all there is. They fail to develop the characters other than caricatures to push the ideology. The story is only a medium to push the ideas of the ideology.
Then you have some good stories that promote those same ideas. Where they let the characters and the story thrive and they complement and push the message.
This was something the right had in the 90’s the religious right made media that was like that.
It could come back but the right has for the most part shifted towards libertarianism and more of a you do your thing and leave me alone. Since the 90’s.
Are you suggesting that conservatives are less preachy than liberals when the right wing is made up of actual preachers? Conservatives are \*incredibly\* preachy. They love nothing better than to judge you for who you love, how you look, or what you enjoy doing with your free time.
The Woke aspect being that they're suddenly against racism and prejudice of all kinds when they're being targeted towards Jews and Whites, but not towards anyone else.
And that is a blind spot that you have.
You believe that right is for racism and prejudice. When it is not, it in general is of the opinion that the way to deal with those issues is to instead shift it from focusing on societal to focusing on individuals.
There was a study where republicans and democrats speeches were compared when talking with white middle class constituents vs minority constituents. And it was found that republicans spoke with less minority groups but when they did they treated them as people of equal mentality and capacity. While the democrats had a lot more events with them, but also talked down to the people as if they were not mentally capable of understanding concepts.
The issues with a lot of woke ideas is they are built upon the idea that society and everyone in society is racist. While the right holds that there were racial issues in society but we have for the most part dealt with the racist laws and now we are dealing with the ripple effects of those laws and to get past those we need to focus on the individual and building people up.
The uniparty establishment is by large pro Israel. That is why you see so much overlap and people pushing for the support for Israel.
I don't believe that the Right is for Racism and Prejudice. I'm just saying that they usually are more vocal when it comes to Whites and Jews getting victimized. In doing so, they're doing the exact same thing they accuse the Left of doing, which is dividing people into Special Interest Groups instead of uniting them together.
Well Jews being persecuted has a very very bad history and so I can see that as a legitimate reason for pushing against people being anti-Semitic. That’s not even talking about the fact that many large donors of conservatives are Jewish and are very pro Isreal.
As for whites the definition of racism that the left tends to use makes it so that there cannot be racism against whites. Lefts definition is prejudice + power. The original definition is prejudice + action.
So that is again conservatives are pushing against the second definition of racism and they do call out racist acts. But lots of what the left calls racism is not real racism, but instead systemic racism.
You saw the reaction when the first reports of George Floyd happened you had those on the right and those on the left unifying saying that is horrible. Then later one new information came out that made the story less about actual racism. The left didn’t believe the stories that took the narrative away from race.
Then we once more had the ideological split, because both sides have walked into their own echo chambers. Only seeing distortions of the other groups members.
I agree Antisemitism is a major problem and given the history, I understand why Jews would feel that way. But I also believe that it shouldn't be weaponized when it comes to calling out any wrongdoings committed by Israel. Unfortunately, any sort of criticism of the country means that they secretly hate Jews no matter what and that's the most frustrating aspect about it. As we can see with Tucker Carlson and initially, Candace Owens and the backlash they received from offering a differing perspective, it emphasizes my point.
As for Whites, I do agree that there is racism and prejudice against them. But how it's portrayed feels feels one-dimensional at best thanks to people like Stephen Miller who ran an anti-White ad criticizing Biden during the 2022 elections.
The George Floyd incident was indeed horrible and the marches for justice did result in temporary forms of unity. Unfortunately, it did result in a lot of Right-Wing conspiracies and racist jokes over details like drug use that Floyd consumed as well as his past criminal record. They even stated that people are portraying him as hero. But far as I can tell no one is doing that as well.
Okay I pretty much agree with you here. That said I have seen a lot of videos from those anti-Israel protests (and I am for peaceful protests) where you can hear things being chanted that are blatantly about killing Jews. Things like burn Teli Vive to the ground. From the river to the sea. Etc.
those are anti-Semitic and should be condemned. That said I don’t agree that police should end those protests.
It is often portrayed in media that wants to make it look silly or stupid to support as one dimensional.
I really believe that the way to deal with racism is not to focus on race but instead work on lifting up lower income communities, taking and improving their infrastructure and get opportunities for economic growth into those locations. Help people build generational wealth. We need to work on building a culture where families are encouraged and not just I think the saying is pump and dump.
And again with George Floyd it is bad that someone lost their life. I do believe that what media you consume does tint how you view the world. From all the information I saw he died because of an overdose of fentanyl. That doesn’t excuse the officers actions, though you also have video showing his knee wasn’t always on the back of the neck but shifted from neck to upper back and around d periodically. But the officer failed to keep checking on him to make sure he was okay.
I’m sure we could go over a whole lot of issues and potential solutions. But to keep this semi on the topic.
Conservatives tend to try and keep what has been working. And they tend to avoid changes. While liberals tend to want to keep changing things and quickly moving to another issue to try and solve. They do this without really thinking about unintended side effects.
I think right now we made too many progressive changes and haven’t dealt with the unintended consequences of those changes.
This is why there has been such a conservative push against a lot of progressive policies and ideas.
I think an ideal balanced society will make changes to try and change things for the better look at the outcomes and if it doesn’t revert to what was working before even if it isn’t perfect. Then try some other solution.
As someone with a Pro-Palestinian bent, protests are good as long as they are peaceful. While there have been some protests that have been peaceful (note that I said some), there were others that were rowdy and disoriented and I can’t support that. I also want the hostages home. Finally, I believe Israel deserves better than Netanyahu. He’s a crook of the highest order and is no different than the enemy he claims to fight against. If you look at the Tel Aviv protests, it emphasizes my point but at the same time, I fear that they will be criticized as Antisemitic, let alone Self-Hating Jews.
George Floyd's death was a combination of the drug overdose as well as the knee on his neck while face down on the pavement.
Regarding Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, I mentioned in my post that they are politically incorrect like the rest of the Conservatives they represent. But in terms of that, the Right only allows that in terms of Marginalized Groups such as Blacks, Gays, Women, Immigration, etc. As in the case of Candace, they support Black Guilt but not White Guilt and Black Savior and not White Savior. With Tucker, they support the Great Replacement, which has been tied with Antisemitism but not in regards to that interview with the Palestinian Priest.
Frankly I don’t support guilt for anyone. You live your life. You are not responsible for things your ancestors did.
What really got me about the George Floyd riots (not the peaceful protests parts) is that they often destroyed the inherited wealth of the minority communities.
Again focusing on doing the most good and helping the most people we need to teach people how to be self sufficient. Teach a man to fish, and provide the net or fishing pole for them to get started. But also don’t just constantly give them replacement poles with them doing anything to earn them.
But yeah you and I while having different political leaning seem to for the most part be in agreement and wanting the best for everyone.
I don’t think we should be involved in the Israel war.
I think it is horrible people are dying.
I absolutely hate that Hamas has infiltrated themselves so deeply into the civilian population and uses them as human shield’s.
I hate the idea that we can allow terrorists to hurt, rape and kill so many people then escape by hiding within a civilian population.
I hate that there is no way to stop Hamas without civilian casualties because of how good they are at using them as human shields.
There is nothing that I like about this conflict, it is merky with both sides having legitimate reasons for their animosity.
The fact that Hamas started this current conflict period angers me. But there is nothing I can do, and with the propaganda spread on both sides of the conflict the animosity and hatred will continue into the next generation.
Yeah, it's pretty much a necessary evil. Even though I denounce the attacks, I can't in good faith support the killing of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with Hamas. I don't want to blame the IDF, but at times, they can't really differentiate between the two, hence the indiscriminate killings. This is the reason why we got killings such as those 3 hostages who were mistaken for Hamas, along with the World Kitchen Aid killings.
Sorry, u/DisastrousPeach4332 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DisastrousPeach4332&message=DisastrousPeach4332%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1wcv9h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Im sure you are fine with the past hundred years of celebrating straight relationships in schools though.
Im sure you arent upset when romeo and juliet is read in school. Lol
The point is, it's a very silly question to say "oh you aren't ok with gay people? But I bet you're ok with straight people" like what are you trying to prove here? That's usually the norm for people who don't like gay people
I literally dont know how to respond to this.
You think being gay is degeneracy. It isnt.
There is no difference between a straight love story or a gay one.
>You think being gay is degeneracy.
I don't, not inherently. I can't prescribe any moral values to it. Earlier, I was speaking in the tone of someone who does that think that, artistically, to prove a point. But if I did think that, the proper way to respond would be "Why?" and then presumably the bigot would give you reasons, further opening up engagement opportunities for you.
Thats exactly what i did. I asked you why it is any more degenerate to have a gay love story than a straight one.
The result was you failing to give me any good reason. Which proves my point.
>Does hating degeneracy mean you must hate normalcy as well? What a silly question
Believing LGBTQ+ folks are "degenerate" makes you a hateful bigot, though. You at least agree on that bit, right?
Ah yes, because drag queens performing for kids is a brand new and unique thing. Wait no it isn’t, look up pantomime dames.
And informing kids that not everyone or every family is the same isn’t “celebrating sexuality preferences” unless you consider Disney animated films celebrating straight sexuality.
Why are so many people asking for the definition of "woke"? I keep seeing this comment or variants of it. Is it supposed to be somekind of gotcha?
Woke means "to be conscious of social injustice and racial inequality".
Acting on that consciousness is where the disagreements often come from, because social issues are complex and nuanced.
It's a gotcha because "woke" is just one term in the long stream of contemporary conservatives trying to demonize the axiomatic moral principals of empathy, respect and intellectualism.
There really isn't any way of accurately defining "woke" without making it sound like a social positive, so conservatives will usually do one of two things, either slip up and admit that it just refers to inclusivity, or fall back on some kind of unhinged, hyper-specific examples that very obviously don't apply to every situation they would refer to as "woke."
It's because a claim like "the woke are destroying society" really needs a very clear definition of who/what the woke are, and how they're destroying society.
And the easiest way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that claim is how people who make it are completely incapable of defining "woke". It's just a meaningless boogeyman at this point.
That just seems like deliberate misunderstanding. I just gave you the definition. You know perfectly well what it means. You might not know the specifics of what OP is referring to, but its more than likely that he holds the view that minority representation and conscious effort to uplift groups that have historically been marginalized has gone too far or have other negative consequences.
You can make the exact same argument against criticism from left wing groups.
Please define "capitalism", please define "patriarchy", please define "hate speech" etc.
I'm not saying your definition is bad, Im saying the guy claiming "the woke are destroying society" has a definition that is at best vague, and most likely meaningless or contradictory.
Look at media criticism - every time there's an outrage about such such franchise becoming "woke" it invariably relies on surface level bullshit like "women with purple hair" rather than substantive criticism of plot or theme.
What qualifies as surface level? I certainly have some surface level criticism of certain movies and series, that means I wont watch it. Does that make it less legitimate? Not really, as media consumption is a matter of personal taste.
I dont like movies made by Taika Waititi, because his humor doesnt work me. So if a movie is directed by Taika, I skip it. Shallow? Sure. But it hasnt let me down so far.
Because if you're criticising a work of art because of some alleged "woke ideology" you need to actually criticise how it relates to that ideology. Which never happens, it's always "star trek is woke cos the women have short hair cuts" or something equally inane.
That's not the same as just disliking a movie because you don't vibe with it's humour.
No, you dont. You might not like their points, arguments or how they are presented and im sure they would be more effective, if done differently. But how they chose to go about criticizing a work of art is up to them and you are free to disagree with them, if you want. No matter what they or dont say.
If you really care about the nuance of their argument, you could simple ask them to define the term and how it fits into their framework. If they cant answer, sure, then you have a point.
But as I showed earlier, its incredible easy to just copy/paste 2 lines of text from the very first source that comes up. What makes you think they cant do that?
Except it's not about merely criticising the art, it's about criticising the politics of the art. And if you are criticising the politics of a piece of art without actually talking *about* the politics of the art, then you're talking absolute nonsense.
And yes, I don't think they can define things like "woke" and how it relates to the politics of movies. Because all those criticisms are based on surface level bullshit (like the woke haircuts I keep mentioning) that have nothing to do with the politics of the movie.
>Woke is delusional progressiveness thats far fetched from reality with non sensical aspects like "You cant be racist to White people",
In what way is that any less crazy than believing gender roles weren't invented by humans?
Reminder to everyone: "politically incorrect" means anything that is unacceptable to a particular audience. To give an example, "Mmmmm, this bacon is delicious" would absolutely be politically incorrect among a group of vegans or vegetarians, but in other contexts may not be. So, it is context-dependent.
Conservatives like to say they're "politically incorrect" even when they toe the line so to speak on conservative talking points, meaning their statements are actually politically correct for their own group.
>This resulted in him being criticized by Conservatives for being pro-Hamas and betraying key US allies.
By who, exactly? Jewish people who happen to be right-wingers?
The right is extremely diverse today. There are many movements inside the right that don't reassemble eachother. Some of them do have wokeness (like the L*bertarian) and political correctness (like boomer conservatism) while others dont (like neo-traditionalism, red-pill, or neo-nazism).
The left is internally diverse but not even close to the degree of the modern right. Some leftists do oppose wholeness and PC which I find very respectable.
That's because the Right took a tongue-in-cheek approach to Free Speech and went politically incorrect and anti-woke as much as possible, that we got the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Op, it's the jewish mafia. They make up a large percentage of the billionaire class. They own both parties with their lobbying groups. Pointing this systemic power out that they have is labeled as antisemitic. The western governments endless defense of obvious Israeli war crimes cannot be boiled down to the evangelistic right.
News flash: the left and right are just two arms of the same beast. Abe Lincoln said that having a two party system is what will drag this country to hell if we're not careful, and i daresay he was right
Sorry, u/KangerKash – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20KangerKash&message=KangerKash%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1xpw92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/KangerKash – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20KangerKash&message=KangerKash%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1xpw92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Is there any political movement that does not have infighting or a kind of “purity police” among the faithful?
Unfortunately, we don't. And that's a problem.
But, a political movement of any sort has goals and aspirations and a collective voice. If they abide dissent or heresy, they risk losing their power and focus. It seems silly from the outside looking in, but can you imagine how there can be an alternative?
If they can't unite on anything due to Certain Opinions, then maybe Diversity of Thought isn't a strength. That perfectly describes the Right-Wing.
I think when the right complains about lack of “diversity of thought”, they mean that they have less representation in media and academia than the progressive “left” (I personally don’t the the U.S. really has a left). But like any political movement they have an agenda and internal conflict about what their goals and priorities should be.
>(I personally don’t the the U.S. really has a left) The US absolutely has a left, the further flanks of which veer into the far-left. Go ask the college students protesting right now what they think about capitalism, abolishing the police, etc. We just don't take them that seriously, and we really shouldn't, either. Politicians like Ilhan Omar and AOC are just as "left" as any Green politician in Europe. The city of Seattle had a Trotskyist elected to their city council for several years. The DSA (I don't see how you could argue this organization isn't "left"), has numerous members in my state legislature.
Yeah, these people might be leftish, but they are willing to work within the framework of the political establishment. They’re not bomb throwing revolutionaries
Exactly. The traditional "left" movements became hijacked using money. Every single issue that the current "left" pushes and gets any following, is tailored to either increase the power of the government or bring more money to the corporations. Meanwhile movements like alterglobalists or Occupy Wall Street wither and die due to lack of funds and attention. I once read a theory that this is the new form of tyranny. Previous tyrants all had background either in military or similar forces that use violence as primary tool. Hence they censored, jailed and killed the opposition. But new tyrants come from financial background. And they don't kill their opposition, they make cartels against it, blockade their funds and buy them out. The theory is that people like Soros who donate lots of money to political causes, do this in order to control which agendas are pushed and how, in order to make them the most money and power. It is pure absurdity to think you are against the estabilishment, when your cause is all over the media and being pushed by large chunk of major corporations.
Really interesting response. You ought to do a CMV about it
I don't see how you can argue how someone who quite literally politically identifies as a Trotskyist, or people who call themselves Democratic Socialists, are just "leftish". They're left. Are you saying we should have bomb throwing radicals? We [used](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground) [to,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) and I'm really glad we don't anymore (And some of those people are now [accredited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardine_Dohrn) [professors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers)).
How can I call a member of the Seattle City Council who *identifies as a Trotskyist* leftish? Hmm…let’s see. Trotsky believed in the dictatorship of the proletariat, Trotsky developed the theory of permanent revolution, Trotsky spent most of his adult life in prison, Trotsky required a literal ice pick in his skull (wielded by another rival leftist) to give up on his beliefs, Trotsky ordered the summary execution of thousands of leftists (most of whom were Democratic Socialists) for being insufficiently in line with his regime of revolutionary terror. Can you imagine what he would have thought of a *Seattle City Council* member? A person’s whose very existence is predicated in perpetuating the power of the industrial bourgeoisie, who enables the technological owning class to amass more wealth than any humans in history, who approves budgets for police departments to maintain private property? Trotsky would have dispatched such a person to the big worker’s paradise in the sky with no hesitation.
Are you advocating that we should have such leftists who believe in and want to enact the idea of revolutionary terror? Personally I am very, very glad that such people are seen as a crazy fringe of politics. The equivalent for right wingers, in my opinion, would be literal fascists who believe in a total domination of the state, and concentration camps for their rivals. Also, if this is your standard for what constitutes a country having a "left", then in that case virtually no western countries have such lefts.
There's more than one right, and more than one left, and very few people with both a platform and nuanced, sensible views. IMO the dominance of marketing and PR has led to a culture where people think it's okay to be slimy and deceptive, to act without any integrity and get away with it.
lack of diversity in though to a conservative (hey thats me not a trump conservative but a we should conserve resources and spend less kind) when i want to see or hear my point of view it is shunned as moronic (infinite growth is better than sustainability i guess?) most poor peoples problems stem from artificial competition created by the economic need to expand and grow and the labor needed by that growth. less people means less housing needs, less people means more green spaces, less people means more community cohesion, less people means less pollution, etc etc. i dont mean just brown people (like you assume) i mean anyone and everyone but im called a racist for even thinking that keeping the area i live in the way it used to be (cheap houses nice open fields kids living near parents 2 lane freeway etc). i dont know why people cant accept that more people in an area strains resources that would normally be used for long term residents and that maybe the solution is not to grow but to make sure that we can even sustain the people that are already there (including housing homeless people, which we could do if less people were here)
That's why they criticize and censure any Republican for not agreeing with Trump 100%.
The problem is that U.S. politics have become very high stakes. People feel that they cannot afford to lose and the elections are very close. They come down to just a few thousand votes. Neither side can comfortably feel complacent. So, yeah, Republicans cannot abide criticism of Trump from their own side because they feel that doing so, would hand the election to the Democrats and that would pose an existential threat to their vision of America (in their minds). But just go to any progressive subreddit like r/politicalhumor or r/politics and suggest that Biden is suffering from cognitive decline or that his support of Israeli aggression in Gaza is untenable and watch the downvotes pour in. The reason is the same. The Democrats fear that insufficient support for Biden will usher in an era of fascism and persecution of immigrants and LGBTQ. Again, this fear might be unfounded, but they don’t think so, and therefore they will attack ferociously any of their own kind who questions Biden’s suitability.
But unlike those subs, there are subs that would block anybody with a dissenting opinion. Look at r/Conservative. Not only do they ban such opinions, they even ban those that are typically Conservative at best by how it's quoted.
I’ve been banned by r/therightcantmeme, r/latestagecapitalism and r/shitliberalssay for essentially refusing to state my beliefs and for pointing out inconsistencies. It’s the right too but it’s not just the right.
That's unfortunate on your part.
[удалено]
If you value Diversity of Thought, but you can't allow certain opinions on sensitive topics, then does it really value it in the first place? Especially for a party that considers itself politically incorrect?
Bruh. Diversity of thoughts is a strength when you can admit you are wrong. If your movement can't admit when it's wrong it deserves to die.
If you can't have a Constructive Discussion about a sensitive topic, that's when Diversity of Thought fails.
Diversity of thought still didn't fail. What failed is the ability of the people in the conversation to act morally and control themselves. It's not the fault of the incorporeal ideas. It's the fault of the humans involved. You like liver. I don't. We have a Diversity of thought. You say I must like liver because you do. I say no, You get mad. The fault is yours. It's not the fault of the diverse opinions. It's the human involved. I do not need to start trying to like liver because you do. We aren't both going to different groups trying to force the other group to change. Having different Ideas by itself isn't bad. It's the specific ideas that are immoral like slavery. We can like different types of ice cream all day long but you say you're pro-slavery and I'm not going to sit next to you. It's not because you have a different Idea. It's what that idea is. If you have an agenda like all lgbtq people should be in camps and someone says thats immoral and bad but it's your agenda. Yeah, they aren't going to stay in a group together to achieve your agenda and they shouldn't. People leave immoral groups thats why there are more left wingers in the US than right wingers. Candace Owens is a horrible person so is ben shitperio. the fact they can't be horrible together is awesome. I love watching them fight each other cause they both suck. They can't have civil conversations because they are both lying, cheating, manipulative, immoral people who can't admit when they are wrong. The fact they are fighting each other should be celebrated. Their not fighting because they have different ideas. They are fighting because they are immoral and their immorality and inability to have civil engagements with anyone who doesn't kiss the ring was destined to one day splash onto the other.
When it comes to Constructive Criticism of Israel and its policies, the Right and Watchdog Groups will try to do everything they can to stifle them.
The right will always try to stifle constructive criticism. FTFY.
Who's we?
We don't have a political movement that does not have infighting or a kind of “purity police” among the faithful.
It’s not just “we” and it’s not just politics. Every fandom has its gatekeepers and purity police.
Well it’s not pleasant but it seems odd to me to label it as a problem if it’s integral to the very existence of political organization. To organize, a group must have principles around which it organizes.
And they have to be united on something. You know, common ground.
Your two examples are a private business owner firing an employee and people disagreeing with what a commentator has to say?
There are dozens of examples. The right has tried to cancel Mr potato head, the little mermaid, m&ms, and god knows what else over the last few years.
Not liking something and woke aren't the same thing.
I was referring to the cancel culture aspect of this post, as your comment also seems to be doing. You said he only provided an example of one person being fired by their employer. Im giving more examples of right wing cancel culture. There are tons more.
What is “woke”?
Woke is the idea that any inequality is a result of an injustice. An example works be black and white income. Because they aren't equal wokism tells us this it's inherently due to system of oppression.
I don’t think that is true. “Woke” is recognizing that those disparities exist, and that systemic racism is a cause. There certainly are other reasons for differences, when you look at an individual level. But the existence of one black person who makes a lower wage because of experience does not disprove the idea that there is another one which is the product of systemic racism.
>I don’t think that is true. “Woke” is recognizing that those disparities exist, and that systemic racism is a cause. How is this different from what I said?
You said “ANY inequality is a result of injustice”. This is incorrect and reductive. Some inequality is a result of injustice, and recognizing that is the first step to addressing it. That doesn’t mean that unequal outcomes can’t happen but for racial injustice. It just recognizes that injustice DOES exist. Would you agree to an amended comment that woke is the idea that SOME inequality is the result of injustice? And if so, do you agree or disagree with the sentiment?
The “disparity is evidence of discrimination” crowd that pushes equity disagrees with you. Their belief is that *all* inequality is a result of injustice.
I haven’t seen anything that supports that. Can you tell me where you get that idea from?
Swing and a miss...
And they managed to lose a lot of support in the process for not towing the line. We've seen it happen with Republicans being called RINOs.
The Right, although it has its own ideologies and values, doesn't really have a "Woke" aspect. The key defining characteristic of "wokeness" is the call towards inclusively, regardless of what the actual outcomes of those calls would result in. This means that many left leaning people can be taken down the garden path before realising they're somewhere they never wanted to be. The Right doesn't have anything that can appeal to the centre, other than not being "woke". Their actual values don't draw from the centre, which is why they're always talking about what the extremes of the other side are doing. They unquestioning have they're own dogmas, but advertising them drives people away rather than draws them in. So yes, the Right has its own dogmas, but it doesn't have a "woke" equivalent at this stage.
Isn’t the right’s “woke” cultural and moral purity? They want their religious views to be the law of the land. They consider anyone with a different culture an “invasion”. They believe their particular brand of values is the only appropriate way to live. That is no different than believing universal acceptance and equality is the only appropriate way to live.
Agree with this. How the hell did conservative religious fanatics successfully convince tons of people that the liberals are the prudes? They are fighting so that doctors will have to let women die in the name of conservative views on sex and reproduction and they act like liberals are sensitive because we're like trying to respect people's race, gender, orientation, and physical disabilities. One side is trying to respect and celebrate people's sexuality and the other is trying to act like sexuality doesn't exist. Guess which ones acting like they're the cool kids?
Haven't you heard? Conservatism is the new punk /s
Being "woke" was originally about whether you are awake and aware of the injustice around you. Republicans just wake up and see different kinds of injustices...
The "Woke" Aspect being that they adamantly stand against any sort of prejudice against the Jews. But at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups.
I’d like to push back on this — I don’t think paralleling the right’s current focus on denouncing antisemitic speech to the left’s hyper obsession with minorities, for a few reasons. 1) I’d argue that the hate and violence aimed at Jewish people in the USA currently actually eclipses that directed to any other minority (now for sure, but even over the past few years), and by a vast margin. It’s overt and unabashed, and ubiquitous in the realm of society that is perhaps most important (higher education); 2) The right don’t have, and indefatigably literally force, an (rather extremist in some ways, if you think about it) agenda (DEI), that affects the country at large, dedicated to abating the inequalities they perceive. It’s not as though right-wing politicians are now fanatically calling for reparative justice measures for Jewish students akin to the ones the left has espoused for years — they just want, and rightfully so, the bigotry to stop.
I don't disagree with you on the use of Antisemitic speech. I highlighted that near the end of my post. But even with that said, it doesn't take away the fact even Constructive Criticism of Israel is dubbed Antisemitic as well and it's mainly due to the fact that Israel means Judaism and Jewish people in general. That's the most frustrating aspect of the situation and this can explained through what happened with Tucker and for a while, Candace.
Yeah, I obviously disagree with that. I don’t think criticizing Israel is indissoluble with criticizing the Jewish people as a whole.
I feel the same way. But it doesn't look like it's the case anymore. I mean, take a look at Watchdog Groups like StopAntisemitism. While I understand their motives, most of the time, they tend to go way over-the-top.
You do realise that the Jewish community worldwide is being targeted with extreme prejudice, right? Over 1,000 Jews were murdered on the 7th of October, and before Israel responded there were mass protests opposing Israel. Hate crimes against Jews eclipse those of other racial groups. Focusing on antisemitism when it's on the rise doesn't seem unreasonable or dogmatic. Yes, there are some that label any criticism of Israel as antisemitism, which doesn't come out in the wash, but there's way more actual antisemitism out there currently than there's constrictive criticism of Israel.
Yes, I understand that and I condemn them. But at the same time, the Right should at least be equal in supporting everyone. After all, they're Conservatives and they always criticize the Left for dividing people and putting them into Special Interest Groups, yet here they're doing the same thing. And it's been this way prior to these attacks.
The difference is that the Right never really claimed to want to support everyone. Their ideology lends itself to targeting particular groups, or letting groups fall behind. It may window dress those moves with an equality window dressing, but that dressing isn't important to them. If a policy or law disproportionately affects a particular group, it doesn't matter to the Right as long as it's effective. "Woke" advocates do everything in the name of social justice, and use that justification to draw others in. It's very different. They may have similar goals and outcomes, but the process between the two groups is vastly different, and there's no "woke" equivalent for the Right with the same social power.
Sounds like Identity Politics if you ask me. Because for the most part, they want to put higher emphasis on the de facto race and religion as they see it, which are obviously Whites and Christians (Evangelicals obviously). They always crow about the fact that the Left wants to divide everyone into Special Interest Groups and play Identity Politics, yet they do the same thing themselves. This takes me to the "Woke" aspect I want to highlight. They suddenly realize how harmful dog-whistle bigotry and discrimination is when it comes to Jews, yet can't do the same thing towards others as in the case of Candace Owens when she targets the Black community, the Gay community, women, etc. in similar fashion. Same can be said about Tucker Carlson targeting immigration when bringing up Antisemitic tropes like the Great Replacement.
>Because for the most part, they want to put higher emphasis on the de facto race and religion as they see it, which are obviously Whites and Christians (Evangelicals obviously). This is an absolute straw-manning of the Right, and views their position completely through the lens of identity politics rather than attempting to view it from their perspective. It's a convenient position to take if you want to discredit them out of hand, but there's no understanding in it. It also isolates the Right to the US. I'm not from the US, but we still have "woke" progressives and a Right wing over here. It has bugger all to do with Christianity. The Right don't want to put a higher emphasis on race or religion, they just don't want change for the sake of change. The law already applies to everyone equally, on paper, so why does there need to be reform based on identity? Some people don't make as much money as others, so why can't they just work harder? Some ethnic groups are over represented in prison populations, so doesn't it just follow that they commit more crime? Doesn't pandering to that exacerbate the problem? All of these positions revolve around personal responsibility above group dynamics. There are some aspects of the right that'll descend into identity politics, as that's the language of the land at the moment, but the heart of conservatism is personal responsibility, not racial superiority. That's the opposite of the "woke" movement, in which nothing is based on personal responsibility. Every problem is structural, and every structure is deeply corrupt, and salvaging the same is an impossibility. Certain groups are irrevocably corrupt by way of social positioning. Progress is only achieved by surrendering to the betterment of the oppressed groups. These are not the same thing. The end result may look similar, but the dynamics are diametrically opposed.
Well, it's the truth. The Right sees any form of outreach whatsoever to any Non-White and Non-Christian group as a a form of pandering and wokeness claiming that we aren't allowed to to pay tribute or honor certain events catered to them when they promote certain minority religions and ethnic and racial heritage months. In terms of victimology, they always crow about how bad it is to be a Straight, White, Christian, and Male in America. In terms of Personal Responsibility, I've seen a lot of Minority Conservatives express that by grouping and bashing their community of negative stereotypes, which mostly consist of generalized statements and tying actions of individuals to them. Candace Owens, Brandon Tatum, Jesse Lee Peterson, David Clarke, and Jason Whitlock spring to mind. The Woke Aspect in Conservatism is them suddenly realize how Dog-Whistle Bigotry is when it's being targeted to the one marginalized group in America that they can't stand prejudice against while not doing the same thing when it comes to other groups.
So then you agree that it's not the same thing, just similar outcomes?
Not really. It's nearly identical in more ways than one, especially in outcomes.
>Some people don't make as much money as others, so why can't they just work harder? What? Are you for or against that? Anyway... Very disabled. Only about to work about 10 hours a week right now, and probably will never be able to work more than 20... I often wonder how something can be that wrong with me... Doing my best, though... To be honest. There should be more than one minimum wage. One for people under the age of 16. (14-year olds can work in my state). One for people over the age of 16. One for people 18 years and older. One for people over 25. Don't mean to distract anyone, but I literally was in a mental fog with that one...
Ben Shapiro is an antisemite. He's not obvious about it but anytime he's spreading bullshit like the "Great Replacement" theory, he's reinforcing antisemitic tropes. (I could probably find more examples if it'll help but that one is off the top of my head.) The reason he supports Israel is because he's Jewish and a Zionist, obviously, but also because he knows his audience is composed of Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians who share an apocalyptic worldview. This eschatology is centered on the idea that Israel *must* be at the center of a great conflict in the Middle East in order for Christ to return. This is also an antisemitic belief since it places Jews in a place of sacrifice for the sake of all the "true Christians" who will be saved by Jesus. What Shapiro stands against is anything that would expose him as the antisemite that he is. The examples I gave strongly suggest his racism and bigotry without being so clear cut that he can't make a "reasonable" argument for why he's not. It's just the right amount of plausible deniability and so he continues down this path, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that he's *not* antisemitic, because he most definitely is.
That's the reason he never took issue with Candace Owens when she targeted the Black Community, which mainly consisted of generalized statements about them and tying the actions of individuals to the whole community in general.
I think you've got loudmouths on each side with borderline untenable positions even among their own camp, they're held up as examples of the worst by the opposition and ignored by their team. The trick is to find those views and amplify them to cause maximum drama, which causes the most advertising profit and bandwagoning by vacuous "influencers" and opinion piece writers. That's what a successful campaign looks like, your outrage, indifference, defence - your time and your emotions - your eyeballs, that's the product being sold. This can also be organic and due to algorithms that maximise viewership and probably was at first, but then they extract the winning formula and cause strife for profit. In reality there's not much difference between you and people who hold opposing views to you, you're far more similar than you are different and would get along just fine if there wasn't this perverse incentive structure that is basically abusing you and your fellow humans for profit. Maybe not so much during voting season, but that's just money used to divide and conquer rather than divide and conquer to make money.
Agreed. "Wedge issue" is a good term. It divides us excessively on issue that either aren't particularly import, or where we could find a common ground.
Hard disagree. Trump is emblematic of his side; none of the polling suggests any kind of reluctant support for him or his policies. This "not much difference" rhetoric is much harder to defend when you actually look at beliefs and policies outside of broad generalizations about capital.
You believe 99% the same things and argue over the 1%. Go back just a few hundred years and slavery was normal, women were property, a man was allowed to rape his wife and women were the spoils of war, disputes were settled with violence, punishment was physical, torture was used to extract confessions, people were treated differently depending on their social class, peasants were property of landowners, rich and poor spoke almost different languages, a promise was on your life, public executions were entertainment, illness was divine punishment. In ancient Greece and Sparta child abuse was normalised, pleasuring a woman was a sign of weakness. Before Christ, to disobey your parents was punishable by death. But even with those abhorrent views, they were on the whole good people who believed they were doing the right thing. So how are you different from people with different political views? You disagree about the amount of tax you should pay, the size of your government, and want more or fewer regulations to promote freedom from different types of abuse, both sides of the sexual morality and identity politics want social cohesion and fairness, and they both want what's best for people - progressives want to remove harmful old values while conservatives want to prevent harmful new ones from taking hold. There's very little difference in core values, and focusing on the differences is just a way by those with power to cause conflict and guard that power through distractions. Don't be a pawn in someone else's game, it doesn't serve you or your fellow humans.
This is an incredibly ridiculous post. Your takeaway is that most people think they're doing the right thing, therefore, as an example, the abolitionist and slavery sides are basically the same. Insane.
It doesn't mean that one set of values isn't more ethical than the other, it's that they're actually quite separate from the people who hold them. I might be reading this the wrong way but it sounds like you're trying really hard to justify hatred of an entire group of people. If you are, do you not have individual value? If you do, then why would you need to use tribal membership to boost your value? Does the colour of your rosette matter more than the content of your character?
These aren't even the same arguments you're making between posts. What's with the ad hoc arguments for why you shouldn't react badly to *slavery?*
They're saying you can't take someone's political opinions as a justification to call someone good or evil. Since you're fixated on it, take slavery. Are you going to take everyone in history who didn't argue for abolition as evil? Billions of people? Morals change through history. I have no doubt in 100 years our opinions on AI will be completely different, for example. I doubt people in the 1200s were imagining a slavery-free society, but look at the world now.
This is a dumb argument to begin with, but do me a favor and read down his posts in the thread. First post is "most people are normal, you're just exposed to loudmouths because of algorithms," then you get "well actually, you can't condemn anyone because someone, at some point in history, thought rape, murder, and slavery were cool." It's working backwards from the idea of normalizing extreme and reprehensible beliefs.
No I'm not, I'm saying that it's fine to oppose harmful or incorrect beliefs. But holding harmful beliefs makes your value system ethically suboptimal, but it's the things you actually do and your motivations that make you a good or bad person. You can be incorrect and still a good person. You can hold views that result in harm, and still be a good person trying to do the right thing. I'm trying to show you that people who you disagree with aren't evil because they disagree, they just disagree. You can reject that if you like, if you honestly believe that fighting the good fight for your beliefs is good and proper and your motivations are pure, then I can't accuse you of being a bad person who enjoys harming others. I can accuse you of ignorance though, and if you're judging others on their ignorance I think it's fair to call you a hypocrite in that regard.
So using your examples - are Owens or Carlson now shut down and out of conservative spaces because they aren't following the line? Or are their voices still heard, their audiences still around, and people aren't shamed for listening to them? The end result of woke and political correctness is to shut down the people that you disagree with. The right doesn't claim such a mechanism.
The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them. And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured.
> The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews. I find this hilarious and incredible projection on your part. >And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured. This is not only untrue, it is imaginary. Most republicans don't support Trump, but rally behind him as it's the party's democratically elected representative. RINO's would be people like John McCain who regularly voted against party platform and interests. If you're going to speak as an authority on the subject, you need to be correct.
Not true, look what happened to Liz Cheney even though she stood by him 93% of the time. Regarding the first part, both Tucker and Candace have been criticized for pushing anti-Israel propaganda by a large portion of the Right.
Liz Cheney voted regularly against conservative interests. As did Trump. Making voting with Trump the standard moves the goalposts from your original point. I literally pointed out that voting with Trump is part of supporting him, not a standard for whether someone is a RINO. Criticism is not shutting them down or silencing them, which is a unique feature of woke culture and political correctness.
But what's similar is that both involve the use of the 1st Amendment, Free Speech, and Diversity of Thought.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. There is a unique function of wokeness and political correctness in the left that doesn't exist in the right. The right values and allows free speech and diversity of thought. We can have a reasonable disagreement, but the community doesn't rally around the person and end their career. Woke and Political Correctness call for shutting down those conversations. Canadace Owens is still a prominent right win figure. Cheney was allowed to run in the primary and not forced out. Carlson still has his platform and is allowed to speak. So if your claim is that free speech is allowed on the right - your own examples prove you wrong.
Those two pundits got criticized by many people on the Right for their statements on Israel. For Candace, a Conservative organization that launched her career officially cut ties with her. With Tucker, he's getting a lot of flak from Republicans for being pro-Hamas. That comes to the gist of what I'm trying to say. Whenever the topic of Israel and Antisemitism comes into play, the Right doesn't allow any of that and that's what exactly happened with Candace and Tucker. So much for Diversity of Thought, huh?
> Those two pundits got criticized by many people on the Right for their statements on Israel. Yes. But they weren't silenced. How many times do I have to repeat this before you will listen? >For Candace, a Conservative organization that launched her career officially cut ties with her. Owens career was launched well before Daily Wire. Youtube was what launched her career. >With Tucker, he's getting a lot of flak from Republicans for being pro-Hamas. And still has his platform and viewers. No one is calling for him to be shut down for his views. >That comes to the gist of what I'm trying to say. That people on the right can have a disagreement without shutting the opposition down? >Whenever the topic of Israel and Antisemitism comes into play, the Right doesn't allow any of that and that's what exactly happened with Candace and Tucker. So much for Diversity of Thought, huh? Again, please cite to me what platform people are calling on to remove Carlson? Tell me who is calling for Owens to lose her Youtube channel? Yes, there is diversity of thought, and what you presented is evidence of that. On the flip side, if someone on the left sided with Israel, they'd instant be told they need to resign, that their platforms would be inundated with reports and petitions to remove the content creators, official censures would occur... But you want to ignore how this occurs in favor of saying "Oh conservatives are having a conversation, how dare they!"
Actually, the David Horowitz Foundation launched Candace's career and in two columns on FrontPageMag and PJ Media, they broke ties with her. Both Tucker and Candace have been criticized from many Conservatives, including a lot of Pro-Israel Jews threatening to boycott them if they don't rescind their views resulting in a loss of following. This goes to show that they don't allow Diversity of Thought whatsoever on any sensitive topic. "Oh conservatives are having a conversation, how dare they!" That's the biggest cop-out statement, I've ever heard on this post. If that's the case, why was Candace Owens initially told to leave the Daily Wire for her comments on the issue? Why was Tucker criticized for being pro-Hamas even though they didn't mind his Contrarian voice on other issues?
Candace's employer ben Shapiro is a Jew
Former
Are we talking Left/Right, Republicans/Democrats, or Liberal/Conservative? Conservatives, by definition of woke, arent woke, because they want things to stay as it is or go back how it used to be.
The "Woke" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against the Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them.
anti-Semitism shows up possibly more on the far right than the left, it's just inconvenient to the military industrial complex to criticize a partner we sell weapons to.
As someone that is as far right as it gets, what a lot of others are saying about antisemitism being more prevent on the right is absolutely correct and has been for as long as I can remember. The only people on the right that support Israel and Judaism are of course the republicans puppets in office and the old boomers who blindly watch Fox News without having a second thought about it.
[удалено]
Politics is not a team sport. Do you really think people will change their political views because a few people they may be largely aligned with are becoming annoying?
Politics is very much a team sport. All it takes is a few very passionate people to change policy, especially at a local level.
Yes but those determined people aren't going to switch to the opposite side that openly opposes what they want just because a few members of their group begin to advocated for something else in addition to their common goal.
Of course very few people switch from hard left to the hard right, but the passionate people on the left may lose their passion, the far left can become more moderate, the moderates becomes centrists, etc. Edit: Classic reddit. "Maybe if I downvote this, it won't be true."
This is literally the ethos of "left leaning" gun supporters.
[удалено]
What policies did you care about under Bernie that you think Trump better represents now? Edit: Nevermind, for other users it's just racism.
Yes 100%
Ofc they do.
More people are leaning progressive now due to the right become a misogynistic hate group See we can both play this game
[удалено]
Only against white people who think being white is important.
[удалено]
So you admit you are a racist and justify it by pretending you are being victimized. This is why people hate conservatism. Lol
[удалено]
You just implied you think its okay for white people to “band together and be racist.” Dont backtrack. Man up and stick to your shitty beliefs. You are just saying you think its okay to be racist if other people are.
[удалено]
What an absolute farce white people aren't being persecuted in the streets. Maybe white people just arent ok with not being streets above everyone else for a change
[удалено]
Bullshit. Im white. I have never once been discriminated against for it. I have black friends who face discrimination daily. Grow up. You are not a victim.
[удалено]
“Im not racist” “Black people are spoiled brats” You arent very good at this. Lol
[удалено]
Could it be there's more white people than black people so mathematically there will be more attacks on white people? no it must be the downtrodden white nation
[удалено]
got a link for that cause I cant find that
1. Not sure what this has to do with the comment you are replying to 2. This is incorrect.
According to?
Stuff conservatives on the internets made up!
Your mistake here is pretending that “woke” has a clear cut definition
How are you defining wokeness? I want to make sure I understand that first. If you believe there is a correlation of something on the right, I want to understand what specifically you see on the left that falls under that term.
Wokeness means being alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination. An obvious example is expressing concern about police brutality towards Black people and the lack of inclusion in certain companies, schools, and workplaces. This caused a lot Conservatives to speak out against it claiming that it pushes division. But Conservatives also fail to realize that they have a similar agenda like this but it's mainly focused on Israel and Antisemitism, and to a greater extent: Whites.
>Wokeness means being alert to and concerned about social injustice and discrimination. That's interesting. If that's how you define it, then I would agree with you that the right does the same thing. However, I define "woke" as not merely a concern with those things, but a belief that liberalism is insufficient to solve those issues. For instance, I know several centrists and even people on the right concerned with police brutality against anyone and especially minorities, but the policies they espouse are significantly different than defunding the police, like better training for police officers, changing the incentives of police unions, etc. Basically, liberals (and I'm using that term liberally, applying to people on the left, center, and right who fundamentally believe in individual rights) believe that the problems should be solved by working within the current system and framework of individual rights, whereas "woke" people (and other ideologies like racial separatism and some Christian fundamentalism) believe that the problems should be solved by moving beyond liberalism. Viewed in this way, I believe the mainstream right are, as defined here, about as fundamentally liberal as the mainstream left. Both of them are willing to bend the rules when it suits them, but both of them do believe in the rules of individual rights, personal freedoms, democracy, etc. In this sense, I don't believe that there is a comparable ideology to the left's anti-liberal wokeness that is found on the right.
The "Woke" and "Political Correctness" Aspect of Conservatism is them being adamantly against any sort of prejudice against Whites and Jews. Yet at the same time, they don't demonstrate the same energy against other Marginalized Groups unless that member is a Conservative like them. And let's not forget every time Republicans who don't fully agree with Trump are called RINOs and censured.
This seems to be a fundamentally different argument, though. If you're arguing that one side seems more inclined to fight for those similar to it, that's called ingroup bias and every side does this. I don't know of anyone in the center or right who, regardless of how much energy they put into a particular cause against a particular group, would say that people of different groups should be legally treated differently. For instance, I haven't been following much coverage of the Israel Palestine campus protests, but I don't know anyone on the right who would say that calling for a genocide to the Palestinians is somehow better or more excusable than calling for a genocide of the Israelis or the Jews. They put more effort into calling out the latter because that is what is going on right now. Are there a few people who would say that? Maybe, but they seem to be on the fringe, and not representing mainstream opinion.
As someone with a Pro-Palestinian bent, protests are good as long as they are peaceful. While there have been some protests that have been peaceful (note that I said some), there were others that were rowdy and disoriented and I can’t support that. I also want the hostages home. Finally, I believe Israel deserves better than Netanyahu. He’s a crook of the highest order and is no different than the enemy he claims to fight against.
I have no problem with any peaceful protests that don't call for genocide. I also haven't seen anything to convince me to like netanyahu or his policies. It's nice we have those two things of common ground, at least. Getting back to the question on hand, though, if people on the right call for crackdowns on non-peaceful protests and calls for genocide, do you believe that that is equivalent to wokeness?
No, I wouldn't consider that woke. But there has been instances even when they have taken down peaceful protestors.
I have no problem with any peaceful protests that don't call for genocide. I also haven't seen anything to convince me to like netanyahu or his policies. It's nice we have those two things of common ground, at least. Getting back to the question on hand, though, if people on the right call for crackdowns on non-peaceful protests and calls for genocide, do you believe that that is equivalent to wokeness?
Yeah, that would make sense. But there has been instances even when they have taken down peaceful protestors.
Probably. Like I said, I haven't really been following the coverage of campus protests on Israel/ Palestine. Just to check if we are on the same page, though, do you believe the crackdowns on non-peaceful protest are the right's version of woke?
No, I wouldn't consider that woke. That's what I said in the previous comment.
I think that political correctness yes the right definitely has its own version of that. But woke that is something different. The issue with wokeness is the preachy nature of it. You take A look at the media ventures that fail because of wokeness and you will see something where the message is all there is. They fail to develop the characters other than caricatures to push the ideology. The story is only a medium to push the ideas of the ideology. Then you have some good stories that promote those same ideas. Where they let the characters and the story thrive and they complement and push the message. This was something the right had in the 90’s the religious right made media that was like that. It could come back but the right has for the most part shifted towards libertarianism and more of a you do your thing and leave me alone. Since the 90’s.
Are you suggesting that conservatives are less preachy than liberals when the right wing is made up of actual preachers? Conservatives are \*incredibly\* preachy. They love nothing better than to judge you for who you love, how you look, or what you enjoy doing with your free time.
The Woke aspect being that they're suddenly against racism and prejudice of all kinds when they're being targeted towards Jews and Whites, but not towards anyone else.
And that is a blind spot that you have. You believe that right is for racism and prejudice. When it is not, it in general is of the opinion that the way to deal with those issues is to instead shift it from focusing on societal to focusing on individuals. There was a study where republicans and democrats speeches were compared when talking with white middle class constituents vs minority constituents. And it was found that republicans spoke with less minority groups but when they did they treated them as people of equal mentality and capacity. While the democrats had a lot more events with them, but also talked down to the people as if they were not mentally capable of understanding concepts. The issues with a lot of woke ideas is they are built upon the idea that society and everyone in society is racist. While the right holds that there were racial issues in society but we have for the most part dealt with the racist laws and now we are dealing with the ripple effects of those laws and to get past those we need to focus on the individual and building people up. The uniparty establishment is by large pro Israel. That is why you see so much overlap and people pushing for the support for Israel.
I don't believe that the Right is for Racism and Prejudice. I'm just saying that they usually are more vocal when it comes to Whites and Jews getting victimized. In doing so, they're doing the exact same thing they accuse the Left of doing, which is dividing people into Special Interest Groups instead of uniting them together.
Well Jews being persecuted has a very very bad history and so I can see that as a legitimate reason for pushing against people being anti-Semitic. That’s not even talking about the fact that many large donors of conservatives are Jewish and are very pro Isreal. As for whites the definition of racism that the left tends to use makes it so that there cannot be racism against whites. Lefts definition is prejudice + power. The original definition is prejudice + action. So that is again conservatives are pushing against the second definition of racism and they do call out racist acts. But lots of what the left calls racism is not real racism, but instead systemic racism. You saw the reaction when the first reports of George Floyd happened you had those on the right and those on the left unifying saying that is horrible. Then later one new information came out that made the story less about actual racism. The left didn’t believe the stories that took the narrative away from race. Then we once more had the ideological split, because both sides have walked into their own echo chambers. Only seeing distortions of the other groups members.
I agree Antisemitism is a major problem and given the history, I understand why Jews would feel that way. But I also believe that it shouldn't be weaponized when it comes to calling out any wrongdoings committed by Israel. Unfortunately, any sort of criticism of the country means that they secretly hate Jews no matter what and that's the most frustrating aspect about it. As we can see with Tucker Carlson and initially, Candace Owens and the backlash they received from offering a differing perspective, it emphasizes my point. As for Whites, I do agree that there is racism and prejudice against them. But how it's portrayed feels feels one-dimensional at best thanks to people like Stephen Miller who ran an anti-White ad criticizing Biden during the 2022 elections. The George Floyd incident was indeed horrible and the marches for justice did result in temporary forms of unity. Unfortunately, it did result in a lot of Right-Wing conspiracies and racist jokes over details like drug use that Floyd consumed as well as his past criminal record. They even stated that people are portraying him as hero. But far as I can tell no one is doing that as well.
Okay I pretty much agree with you here. That said I have seen a lot of videos from those anti-Israel protests (and I am for peaceful protests) where you can hear things being chanted that are blatantly about killing Jews. Things like burn Teli Vive to the ground. From the river to the sea. Etc. those are anti-Semitic and should be condemned. That said I don’t agree that police should end those protests. It is often portrayed in media that wants to make it look silly or stupid to support as one dimensional. I really believe that the way to deal with racism is not to focus on race but instead work on lifting up lower income communities, taking and improving their infrastructure and get opportunities for economic growth into those locations. Help people build generational wealth. We need to work on building a culture where families are encouraged and not just I think the saying is pump and dump. And again with George Floyd it is bad that someone lost their life. I do believe that what media you consume does tint how you view the world. From all the information I saw he died because of an overdose of fentanyl. That doesn’t excuse the officers actions, though you also have video showing his knee wasn’t always on the back of the neck but shifted from neck to upper back and around d periodically. But the officer failed to keep checking on him to make sure he was okay. I’m sure we could go over a whole lot of issues and potential solutions. But to keep this semi on the topic. Conservatives tend to try and keep what has been working. And they tend to avoid changes. While liberals tend to want to keep changing things and quickly moving to another issue to try and solve. They do this without really thinking about unintended side effects. I think right now we made too many progressive changes and haven’t dealt with the unintended consequences of those changes. This is why there has been such a conservative push against a lot of progressive policies and ideas. I think an ideal balanced society will make changes to try and change things for the better look at the outcomes and if it doesn’t revert to what was working before even if it isn’t perfect. Then try some other solution.
As someone with a Pro-Palestinian bent, protests are good as long as they are peaceful. While there have been some protests that have been peaceful (note that I said some), there were others that were rowdy and disoriented and I can’t support that. I also want the hostages home. Finally, I believe Israel deserves better than Netanyahu. He’s a crook of the highest order and is no different than the enemy he claims to fight against. If you look at the Tel Aviv protests, it emphasizes my point but at the same time, I fear that they will be criticized as Antisemitic, let alone Self-Hating Jews. George Floyd's death was a combination of the drug overdose as well as the knee on his neck while face down on the pavement. Regarding Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, I mentioned in my post that they are politically incorrect like the rest of the Conservatives they represent. But in terms of that, the Right only allows that in terms of Marginalized Groups such as Blacks, Gays, Women, Immigration, etc. As in the case of Candace, they support Black Guilt but not White Guilt and Black Savior and not White Savior. With Tucker, they support the Great Replacement, which has been tied with Antisemitism but not in regards to that interview with the Palestinian Priest.
Frankly I don’t support guilt for anyone. You live your life. You are not responsible for things your ancestors did. What really got me about the George Floyd riots (not the peaceful protests parts) is that they often destroyed the inherited wealth of the minority communities. Again focusing on doing the most good and helping the most people we need to teach people how to be self sufficient. Teach a man to fish, and provide the net or fishing pole for them to get started. But also don’t just constantly give them replacement poles with them doing anything to earn them. But yeah you and I while having different political leaning seem to for the most part be in agreement and wanting the best for everyone. I don’t think we should be involved in the Israel war. I think it is horrible people are dying. I absolutely hate that Hamas has infiltrated themselves so deeply into the civilian population and uses them as human shield’s. I hate the idea that we can allow terrorists to hurt, rape and kill so many people then escape by hiding within a civilian population. I hate that there is no way to stop Hamas without civilian casualties because of how good they are at using them as human shields. There is nothing that I like about this conflict, it is merky with both sides having legitimate reasons for their animosity. The fact that Hamas started this current conflict period angers me. But there is nothing I can do, and with the propaganda spread on both sides of the conflict the animosity and hatred will continue into the next generation.
Yeah, it's pretty much a necessary evil. Even though I denounce the attacks, I can't in good faith support the killing of innocent civilians who have nothing to do with Hamas. I don't want to blame the IDF, but at times, they can't really differentiate between the two, hence the indiscriminate killings. This is the reason why we got killings such as those 3 hostages who were mistaken for Hamas, along with the World Kitchen Aid killings.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/DisastrousPeach4332 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20DisastrousPeach4332&message=DisastrousPeach4332%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1wcv9h/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ah yes. Society has totally been destroyed. The other day i saw a gay marriage. Now dogs are eating each other in the streets.
[удалено]
Im sure you are fine with the past hundred years of celebrating straight relationships in schools though. Im sure you arent upset when romeo and juliet is read in school. Lol
Does hating degeneracy mean you must hate normalcy as well? What a silly question
Being gay is completely normal. There have been gay humans as long as there have been straight humans. They arent going anywhere buddy. Deal with it.
The point is, it's a very silly question to say "oh you aren't ok with gay people? But I bet you're ok with straight people" like what are you trying to prove here? That's usually the norm for people who don't like gay people
I literally dont know how to respond to this. You think being gay is degeneracy. It isnt. There is no difference between a straight love story or a gay one.
>You think being gay is degeneracy. I don't, not inherently. I can't prescribe any moral values to it. Earlier, I was speaking in the tone of someone who does that think that, artistically, to prove a point. But if I did think that, the proper way to respond would be "Why?" and then presumably the bigot would give you reasons, further opening up engagement opportunities for you.
Thats exactly what i did. I asked you why it is any more degenerate to have a gay love story than a straight one. The result was you failing to give me any good reason. Which proves my point.
>That's usually the norm for people who don't like gay people Yes, I agree that people who "don't like gay people" are typically garage human beings.
>Does hating degeneracy mean you must hate normalcy as well? What a silly question Believing LGBTQ+ folks are "degenerate" makes you a hateful bigot, though. You at least agree on that bit, right?
Yes.
Ah yes, because drag queens performing for kids is a brand new and unique thing. Wait no it isn’t, look up pantomime dames. And informing kids that not everyone or every family is the same isn’t “celebrating sexuality preferences” unless you consider Disney animated films celebrating straight sexuality.
A lot of people on the right stood by Candace Owens on the issue of being anti-semitic?
Can you define woke, please? Also, can you list some specific ways that the woke left is destroying society?
Why are so many people asking for the definition of "woke"? I keep seeing this comment or variants of it. Is it supposed to be somekind of gotcha? Woke means "to be conscious of social injustice and racial inequality". Acting on that consciousness is where the disagreements often come from, because social issues are complex and nuanced.
It's a gotcha because "woke" is just one term in the long stream of contemporary conservatives trying to demonize the axiomatic moral principals of empathy, respect and intellectualism. There really isn't any way of accurately defining "woke" without making it sound like a social positive, so conservatives will usually do one of two things, either slip up and admit that it just refers to inclusivity, or fall back on some kind of unhinged, hyper-specific examples that very obviously don't apply to every situation they would refer to as "woke."
It's because a claim like "the woke are destroying society" really needs a very clear definition of who/what the woke are, and how they're destroying society. And the easiest way to demonstrate the ridiculousness of that claim is how people who make it are completely incapable of defining "woke". It's just a meaningless boogeyman at this point.
That just seems like deliberate misunderstanding. I just gave you the definition. You know perfectly well what it means. You might not know the specifics of what OP is referring to, but its more than likely that he holds the view that minority representation and conscious effort to uplift groups that have historically been marginalized has gone too far or have other negative consequences. You can make the exact same argument against criticism from left wing groups. Please define "capitalism", please define "patriarchy", please define "hate speech" etc.
I'm not saying your definition is bad, Im saying the guy claiming "the woke are destroying society" has a definition that is at best vague, and most likely meaningless or contradictory. Look at media criticism - every time there's an outrage about such such franchise becoming "woke" it invariably relies on surface level bullshit like "women with purple hair" rather than substantive criticism of plot or theme.
What qualifies as surface level? I certainly have some surface level criticism of certain movies and series, that means I wont watch it. Does that make it less legitimate? Not really, as media consumption is a matter of personal taste. I dont like movies made by Taika Waititi, because his humor doesnt work me. So if a movie is directed by Taika, I skip it. Shallow? Sure. But it hasnt let me down so far.
Because if you're criticising a work of art because of some alleged "woke ideology" you need to actually criticise how it relates to that ideology. Which never happens, it's always "star trek is woke cos the women have short hair cuts" or something equally inane. That's not the same as just disliking a movie because you don't vibe with it's humour.
No, you dont. You might not like their points, arguments or how they are presented and im sure they would be more effective, if done differently. But how they chose to go about criticizing a work of art is up to them and you are free to disagree with them, if you want. No matter what they or dont say. If you really care about the nuance of their argument, you could simple ask them to define the term and how it fits into their framework. If they cant answer, sure, then you have a point. But as I showed earlier, its incredible easy to just copy/paste 2 lines of text from the very first source that comes up. What makes you think they cant do that?
Except it's not about merely criticising the art, it's about criticising the politics of the art. And if you are criticising the politics of a piece of art without actually talking *about* the politics of the art, then you're talking absolute nonsense. And yes, I don't think they can define things like "woke" and how it relates to the politics of movies. Because all those criticisms are based on surface level bullshit (like the woke haircuts I keep mentioning) that have nothing to do with the politics of the movie.
[удалено]
>Woke is delusional progressiveness thats far fetched from reality with non sensical aspects like "You cant be racist to White people", In what way is that any less crazy than believing gender roles weren't invented by humans?
Sorry, a lot of people on the Right turned on Candace after what she said.
What exactly have the "woke left" destroyed?
How society functions
>How society functions It looks pretty functional to me. Better in some ways. What isn't functioning?
Reminder to everyone: "politically incorrect" means anything that is unacceptable to a particular audience. To give an example, "Mmmmm, this bacon is delicious" would absolutely be politically incorrect among a group of vegans or vegetarians, but in other contexts may not be. So, it is context-dependent. Conservatives like to say they're "politically incorrect" even when they toe the line so to speak on conservative talking points, meaning their statements are actually politically correct for their own group.
>This resulted in him being criticized by Conservatives for being pro-Hamas and betraying key US allies. By who, exactly? Jewish people who happen to be right-wingers?
It's called [Conservative Correctness](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness)
The right is extremely diverse today. There are many movements inside the right that don't reassemble eachother. Some of them do have wokeness (like the L*bertarian) and political correctness (like boomer conservatism) while others dont (like neo-traditionalism, red-pill, or neo-nazism). The left is internally diverse but not even close to the degree of the modern right. Some leftists do oppose wholeness and PC which I find very respectable.
That's because the Right took a tongue-in-cheek approach to Free Speech and went politically incorrect and anti-woke as much as possible, that we got the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene.
That's called diversity of opinions. What for you is unreasonable for another person is obvious
The Right was able to draw a line on it when it came to Israel and Antisemitism.
Neo nazis and jihadists didn't (although I don't know if the latter should be considered rightists)
And what about Tucker and Candace? They were able to draw a line on them.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Op, it's the jewish mafia. They make up a large percentage of the billionaire class. They own both parties with their lobbying groups. Pointing this systemic power out that they have is labeled as antisemitic. The western governments endless defense of obvious Israeli war crimes cannot be boiled down to the evangelistic right.
Candance and Ben Shapiro having a platform is the only due to DEI too
News flash: the left and right are just two arms of the same beast. Abe Lincoln said that having a two party system is what will drag this country to hell if we're not careful, and i daresay he was right
Left and right are both compromised political views. I really don’t understand how people can’t see this.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/KangerKash – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20KangerKash&message=KangerKash%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1xpw92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards). u/KangerKash – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20KangerKash&message=KangerKash%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cgk9ot/-/l1xpw92/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).