Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ayziak t1_j0t6lxk wrote

Reply to comment by AdmiralAkbar1 in Arapahoe County to provide housing for former inmates experiencing homelessness by AudibleNod

"experiencing homelessness" is decent but wtf is "justice-involved" supposed to convey without context lol.

I also particularly like the term "houseless" because it really drives home that the issue is a lack of housing, not necessarily an abject moral failure.

4

oldar4 t1_j0ta7rk wrote

Homeless doesn't either. Woke liberals just think everything is easily fixable and blameable with quick solutions and black or white thinking. If people think homeless sounds morally bad then that is them projecting their judgments onto them.

−5

Ayziak t1_j0tajpz wrote

See, you lost me when trying to use "woke" as a derogatory 🙄

5

oldar4 t1_j0tap5v wrote

Woke liberals are just as bad if not worse than Trump conservatives. Both are equally bad in different ways.

−5

Ayziak t1_j0tb7fc wrote

"Woke", as in "Awake"... As in the alternative to "Asleep"? It always comes off as just being upset that people are aware of what you're doing.

3

oldar4 t1_j0tbbmq wrote

Woke as the colloquial term for people who push their specifically leftist agenda without room for discussion or compromise to the point of dehumanizing and censoring any who disagree even in the minutiae

−1

Ayziak t1_j0tbl8w wrote

It's just so hilarious to me that of all terms to be co-opted by the right and turned into a colloquial insult, when you spend 10 seconds actually thinking about the meaning it becomes clear that they just want their opposition to roll over and "go back to sleep"

3

AdmiralAkbar1 t1_j0tfcpd wrote

That's not really much of an argument. It's like if someone who supports abortion sarcastically refers to the other side as "pro-lifers," then someone who opposes abortion goes "Ha, you admit you're pro-death!"

0

Ayziak t1_j0tg8q7 wrote

You're right, this was less an argument and more an observation. To that end, out of all the examples I can think of, this is the most blatant "saying the quiet part out loud" that comes to mind.

1

philly_2k t1_j0tlelt wrote

liberals are not leftists

2

oldar4 t1_j0tlj20 wrote

A woke liberal is a leftist.

0

philly_2k t1_j0tnbj5 wrote

liberalism is conservative in nature after there has been a liberal revolution instating property owners to be the ruling class

for the specifics of the US both parties are in economic politics neoliberals, the only difference is the civic liberalism is more in tune with the moralizing of the Democrat party and the Republicans falling more into conservative politics when it comes to that

none of them represent any labour policies a true leftist party would

Liberalism

Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people, especially from country to country.

Having its origins in the assertion of property owners right against conservative forces, liberalism of all its different varieties is generally an ideology of the urban property owners. Very broadly, liberalism asserts individual autonomy against the intrusion of the community into that. The main source of ambiguity in liberalism is the divergence between “economic liberalism” and “civic liberalism”.

“Economic liberalism”, sometimes called Neo-liberalism or “big-L Liberalism” advocates a laissez faire economic regime, i.e., the right of property-owners to exercise the power of money unhindered by regulations, redistributive taxes and so on. Economic liberalism therefore easily makes common cause with the traditional sources of conservative politics – the landed aristocracy and Christian fundamentalists. Neo-liberalism (“Economic rationalism” in Australia) favours reliance on market forces to resolve social problems, rather than methods of state regulation.

“Civic liberalism” on the other hand, emphasises the importance of individual autonomy against determination by traditional norms, racial prejudice, entrenched power relations and economic disadvantage. Under the banner of “equality of opportunity”, civic liberalism can come close to forms of communitarianism in emphasising the responsibility of the community to secure the basic conditions of life of members of the community, or, under the banner of “freedom of the individual” on the other hand, to libertarianism, in emphasising the rights of individuals to make “life-style” choices free from interference by the community, provided they do no harm to others.

In the U.S., “liberal” has the specific connotation of seeking to promote the social good without challenging the right of the ruling class to rule. Thus, the American ‘liberal’ who wants higher wages and a better health service is quite distinct from the labour activist who aims for much the same things but whose conception is that this entails a fight against the ruling elite.

3

oldar4 t1_j0tnp6u wrote

All the more reason we need more than two parties. Theres no room for subtlety and nuance when its either a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

As you said "Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people, especially from country to country". However in my use of the word, I was using it as a catchall for democrats... the nuance of the definition doesn't matter really in the context of what I was talking about.

1

philly_2k t1_j0tqncl wrote

more parties will just make it more turd sandwiches, but it would be an improvement to what it is now

BUT it will not fix the systemic issue of liberal electoralism that is the basis for most democracies right now

property owners are heavily skewing politics in their favor as they have more influence on policies through lobbying and ownership of media corporations influencing public opinion ( big reason why most people still fall for the charade of liberal politics instead of trying to force systemic change) and also through law enforcement agencies enforcing their property rights (be it housing through evicting or intellectual property and branding through cease and desist or similar means) add to that making homelessness a crime and all convicts basically loosing all rights reserved for citizens in a country with the biggest prison population world wide

then you have union leaders being paid off or intimidated to sign on deals that hurt their union members, because disruption is blamed on the workers striking instead of the owners not treating the workers right

the system is actively working to keep people from being able to influence politics

all this are examples of liberal politics add to that a little bit of conservative thought and voilà you get fascism, that's how it happened 100 years ago in Europe and that's why fascism is rising all around the globe and people pretend it has nothing to do with a failing system, even though we should have learned from history that it does

2

Ayziak t1_j0tbdhb wrote

Um, no. One side wants equity & societal progression. The other wants to regress to the 1950s so they don't have to see a spooky scary black person living in their neighborhood.

3

oldar4 t1_j0tbl3s wrote

Liberals tend to be more racist. Sure they talk a big game but look at the racially divided neighborhoods in blue states. They want them to "be equal....just over there away from us".

My point is both sides are bad, but the changing of terminology is a modern leftist tactic to try to control behavior and thought through changing the vocabulary. It is subtle, manipulative and ultimately conveys that other people know whats best for you, so don't think for yourself

−2

Ayziak t1_j0tbwpy wrote

See, I'm a very agreeable person and I'm so tempted to openly discuss with a level-headed, articulate argument such as this.

But then you take another read of the actual content and see just how detached from reality it is, and there is no middle ground with that. I'm out.

2

oldar4 t1_j0tcgc9 wrote

data for racially divided segregation in San Francisco number 1

racism in liberal city data

same thing in Austin tx

top 10 most segregated American cities are considered the most liberal and inclusive

why are liberal cities bad for blacks?

My "gotcha" tactics might seem intrusive and pigheaded due to their bluntness, but I've ran out of ideas to wake up the "woke". They've drank the kool-aid, the propaganda has so fully worked on them they do not see they put their handcuffs on themselves.

Clinton was the one who let wall street proliferate in Washington , not Republicans. The democrats like to be the superhero and protector of the weak, but they are equally elitist and self serving as Republicans. They are more sinister however because they have otherwise smart people convinced

0

Ayziak t1_j0tdcqe wrote

You're right! It's almost as if the whole system is stacked against certain people no matter where they live.

But go ahead and ask any person of colour if they'd rather live in SF, or Harrison AK (or any of the deep south for that matter).

This is a sign that further progressive policy & sentiment is needed everywhere, not that we should give up trying and regress to the 50s.

2

oldar4 t1_j0tdle4 wrote

It is stacked against certain people. The poor. Always it is a game of keeping poor down and uneducated and confused while the rich lead easy, luxurious lives.

Everything else is a distraction from the real fight and the real enemy. That is rich vs poor, and those outrageously wealthy are the enemy. Those born into old money centuries old. Those who dehumanize and view the poor as animals because they were born lucky.

1

Ayziak t1_j0telqa wrote

We can agree there. It's my firm belief that most "us vs them" dichotomies are carefully fed & guided to distract from the real disparity of "rich vs poor".

However in the meantime, at the end of the day all that matters is the average quality of life for each and every person. It's important to remember that, with some major twists and turns, progressive views have always prevailed in the long run. The world inherently progresses, and there's only so much someone can drag their feet in a progressing world.

1

oldar4 t1_j0th31f wrote

Words chsnge their meaning often and shouldn't be trusted alone. Our liberals in America are conservatives compared to other parts of the world.

If we are all slaves who live comfortably, is that a good thing? I'd argue no.i think rich vs poor is all that matters and if we solve that big issue then many small issues will be fixed through collateral damage so to speak. Broke, hungry and homeless? Fixing wealth vs poor issues solves that.

1

SenatorBeatdown t1_j0uv7hu wrote

When you say woke, do you mean the definition DeSsssssssantis lawyers provided in court recently?

Woke is “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”

Is that what you mean by as bad as Trump conservatives? The same cons who tried to overthrow our democracy? The cons who killed the 4th Amendment? The cons who want go make 10 year olds experience State Mandated Birth?

Liberals can be annoying sure. But you really gonna say they are as bad as Fascism? Ya gonna throw away our Democracy and shit on The Constitution to own the libs?

Coward.

1

Ayziak t1_j0v8q7s wrote

👆 this. Thanks for this comment - I didn't even get to touch on the sheet magnitude of the false equivalence above, this says it well.

1

SenatorBeatdown t1_j0vgr4g wrote

Thanks! Please copy and paste it everytime some dipshit compares "woke" with destroying democracy

1

oldar4 t1_j0x3kr1 wrote

Who compared woke to destroying democracy? Are these more DeSantis talking points you're strawmanning? Its so easy to defeat an enemy that you set up qnd doesn't actually exist.

And you say fascism is bad as if the totalitarianism sold and repackaged by liberals isn't equally worse. People who controls your thoughts and speech are not much better than those who tell you not to do things. They're doing the same thing but in a more insidious manner so you can't even debate the points or else you get called sexist, racist , transphobe or whatever

0

SenatorBeatdown t1_j0zguu9 wrote

It's not a straw man, Google the quote. DeSantis lawyers literally said that was the definition of woke.

Why are you so triggered by facts?

0

oldar4 t1_j10qg1p wrote

You're the one whl.brought up DeSantis and his definition. Its your strawman. I didn't bring up him at all nor agree to that definition

1

SenatorBeatdown t1_j11itet wrote

I don't think you know what a straw man is. A straw man is when you deliberately make bad arguments that you say the opponent is making.

A straw man is NOT quoting something someone directly said. A lawyer representing DeSaintis in a court of law. Google it, I double dog dare you.

So when you say woke, you need to clarify what you mean. Do you mean mildly annoying internet wokescolds? Or do you mean that “the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.” is just as bad as attempting a Fascist coup against the U.S. government and trying to end Democracy?

1

oldar4 t1_j11ys36 wrote

You brought up all the DeSantis stuff. I said the word woke and you brought up DeSantis and his definition. Literally a strawman

1