Jump to content

Mr.Carrow

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,585

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mr.Carrow

  2. Posted

    Just now, Badger said:

    It is an opinion - not particularly well-supported with evidence: interesting but not the Holy Grail I'm afraid.

    So you will be able to provide a step by step analysis of his points then?

  5. Posted

    Just now, Badger said:

    I'm sorry I ignored your links to the Ministry of Truth 🤣 Accepting propaganda, does not make you informed, I'm afraid, now matter how many times you cite it.

    So do you think Andrew Sullivan is making things up in the article above (you seem to be a bit of an expert on that subject).?

  6. Posted

    "Afterall, the core truth of our condition, this theory argues, is that we live in a system of interlocking oppressions that penalize various identity groups in a society. And all power is zero-sum: you either have power over others or they have power over you. To the extent that men exercise power, for example, women don’t; in so far as straight people wield power, gays don’t; and so on. There is no mutually beneficial, non-zero-sum advancement in this worldview. All power is gained only through some other group’s loss. And so the point became not simply to interpret the world, but to change it, to coin a phrase, an imperative which explains why some critics call this theory a form of neo-Marxism."

    If people cannot see the totalitarian nature of this movement have simply stopped thinking. 

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

    Well I have sadly come to the conclusion that only the simple use the made-up term 'woke' to label all and everybody that may think things are a tad more complicated and nuanced than a simple knee jerk reaction. But then that was the point of the word wasn't it - to create a tribal label for the unthinking & unquestioning to use as a shorthand for all they disagree with. As Orwell's 1984 was noted earlier I would add that 'Woke' wouldn't be out of place with Newspeak 'Bellyfeel' or 'Duckspeak' for our true believers. 

    What I do notice is that it's those largely with grudge or chip on their shoulder that use it yet are completely incapable of a moment of introspection. The trouble is few of us fit neatly into any of these boxes like 'woke' or 'lefty' for the simpletons to label. We are all more complicated than that being 'right' on some issues and 'left' on others.

    So why, in your opinion, would a very well respected gay liberal journalist write this? Funnily enough, it's been completely ignored on this thread. It's almost as if people are stuck in their comfortable bubbles and don't want to engage in new information.....https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-roots-of-wokeness

  8. Posted

    4 hours ago, Badger said:

    I'm glad that you acknowledge institutional racism. My recollection was that you not - but perhaps I misremembered.

    Given that you constantly attribute things to me that I haven't written, it seems you misremember quite a lot. There is a big difference between saying there are racists within institutions and that institutions are fundamentally racist or "the system is racist" as you put it. There are also very good reasons why ideological groups would want to frame the world in this way and there are many people explaining the workings behind it, a few of which I've shared on different threads. You've ignored all of them. You are not informed.

  9. Posted · Edited by Mr.Carrow

    8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

    Thanks for the defense HF - I actually didn't think these simple observations here where that contentious or threatening to some.

    As to Carrow's leap into the abyss - frankly don't know what he's on about but it looks dark down there.

    However, amused me slightly as a serious girlfriend I had long ago was German (Black Forest area), her father injured and limped (bullet in leg) from WW2. He'd been 'conscripted' into' Hitler Youth (and no he really didn't have a serious choice!). 

    When your girlfriend only exists because when the ideologically possessed mob came for her father, he only survived because he tried to shoot himself in the heart by pulling the trigger of a rifle with his toe and missed. He was rushed to hospital and the doctors pulled him through and hid his identity. His crime? Being a very accomplished and popular teacher in Cambodia during Pol Pot's reign of evil. To the day he died he was receiving thank you letters from ex-students doing very well for themselves all around the world. I know ideological possession when I see it, and I very definitely see it on the Woke Left. If you don't see it I would think you probably only engage in media which refuses to cover it. So yes, when you see sheltered, know nothing know alls angling for history to repeat itself you could say that is coming from a dark place.

    I'm currently living in a hostel in Buenos Aires full of immigrant workers from around South America. Many have lost their income due to the pandemic but everybody tries to help each other and there is a jovial, egalitarian if very earthy and very politically incorrect atmosphere. According to your definition they are all racists but have far more respect for these honest people than some of the contributors to this thread.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    8 minutes ago, Badger said:

    Good - and do you also accept that it exists in our society and institutions?

    I do and have written as such. I just don't accept the totalising framing and language employed by the Woke left nor do I like and trust the movement and philosophy behind it (applied post modern critical theory). Given that I've posted loads of links,none of which you've engaged with, I think it's clear you simply don't want to actually understand what I'm getting at and would rather constantly throw out falsehoods.

  11. Posted · Edited by Mr.Carrow

    8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    Yet again you sound off like a Daily Express journalist shouting out ad hominem accusations, generalised slurs, and refusing to address any of the specific issues raised. Every time you shout out "Woke" to anyone who has the audacity to mention anything to do with institutionalised racism, or says anything you happen to disagree with, makes the right-wing establishment in this country glow with pride. 

    So I ask again, please explain how your pathetic right-wing rant constitutes even remotely a possible interpretation of what YF said. I'll even copy both quotes here to make things easy for you

    Yellow Fever's post:

    Your response

    Truly ridiculous, but that's no surprise.

    By YF's own definition my girlfriend,her family and many of the people I have met traveling are racists. I have a more kind, charitable outlook in that I think their bias is natural (if unfortunate) and based on tribal reactions and ignorance.  You then have a choice as to whether to vilify and condemn (as Woke does to the "deplorable" working classes) or to gently educate and show there is a better way. I choose positive; I choose the latter. 

  12. Posted · Edited by Mr.Carrow

    28 minutes ago, Badger said:

    Neatly side-stepped the fact that you have directly contradicted yourself in successive posts. I directly quoted you, but rather than deal with it, you resort to personal abuse.

    I think that I am more saddened than annoyed😩 It is only an internet chatroom, you don't have to turn everything into an argument that you have to win  you know - it is meant to be an exchange of ideas....

    I have argued in good faith throughout and I genuinely have no idea what point you are trying to make (and I don't think you do). If you want I can do what I had to do on other threads and provide direct quotes from my posts proving that you were lying. I have said time and again that racism still (pretty f*ckng obviously) exists. We have been disagreeing about the extent and the language used to describe it, and what the motivations are behind such language. 

    Also a good faith "exchange of ideas" doesn't generally include accusing people of believing and posting stuff when they have actually posted the opposite and then gaslighting them when they point it out. So, provide a quote in which I denied that racism exists in individuals (I can provide plenty of quotes from me stating the opposite) or apologise and I will chalk it down as a mistake. Don't worry, I won't try and cancel you for it....

  13. Posted

    Just now, keelansgrandad said:

    But the ones you mention are hardly Marxists. The three greatest mass murderers in history.

    Its not that its never been tried properly, its that its never been tried.

    I think the best argument to this is that what is required to implement these policies when coming up against human nature leads to the horrific outcomes of those regimes. The evidence seems to suggest this. The question is do we want to try it all again to find out?

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    26 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    So your response to YF's temperate and reasonable claim that: "In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above. Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism. Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else."  is to engage in your standard tactic of claiming he has said something very different in order to set up an extreme straw man argument that bears no resemblance to what is being claimed. Explain how you get from what YF says to your ridiculous claim that he is saying "In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists". Or that he says anything that justifies your rant that, "When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. "

    It's not difficult to see why you are so fond of throwing around the pejorative catch all slur "woke", and why you find the reactionary ruling class mouthpieces The Daily Mail, The Daily Express, and the Tory Party your natural bedfellows.

    I have lived and worked in the working classes all my life, whereas you have admitted that you are middle class. You have no idea how badly identity politics goes down in the 57% of the UK who describe themselves as working class. Your rabid condescending lectures from the privileged leafy suburbs are irrelevant. You do not understand how the world works. Keep losing our side votes dude, Boris is applauding you all the way.

  15. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Badger said:

    ... you omit the fact that Mr C also denies what he has said in the first place - see my post above yours.

    But your assertion is correct - he likes to "redefine" what others have said...

    Given that is exactly what you have done on multiple threads and have just done again, that takes the levels of hypocrisy into the stratosphere. The very definition of bad faith.

  16. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Badger said:

    So I replied....

    Your response...

     

    Either you are deliberately dissembling or just don't know what you say from one minute to the next!

    You accused me of "denying that racism exists in our individuals and institutions". I spent a lot of time on another thread having to pull up my quotes to prove your lies wrong. So again, I ask for a quote in which I said anything of the sort. 

    But to be clear,in order to overcome humanities natural biases I do not believe that tarring everything we find uncomfortable between different groups with the most pejorative,loaded and judgemental terms (racism,sexism etc) we can muster is in any way constructive. It's the exact opposite and if that isn't clear by now I'm not sure that I'm debating with people connected to the real world. And of course the irony is that the psychology behind the desire to judge and condemn the "other" is exactly the same as the atavistic tribalism that drives real racism. Same demonisation, different tribes.

  17. Posted

    5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

    Thanks Badger. I agree with  you here.  In my earlier post I gave family examples of subtle racism exactly as alluded to above and what we should try to change and rise above.

    Yet some then defend or excuse this as human nature to deflect from calling it out as what it is - racism.

    Being wary of others that are unknown to you may well be a human indeed animal trait. Discrimination and making assumptions on the basis of race alone - often blind to the actual person - is something else. 

    In that case my girlfriend and her family are vile n*zi racists. Ok, but I have a cunning plan. When I go back I'll start a political movement telling them such in no uncertain terms. I'll call them deplorables and state that flying their countries flag makes them irredeemable. I'll set up online mobs ever vigilant for the slightest anachronistic joke or ambiguous comment from 20 years ago and campaign to get those people sacked or worse (all from the comfort of my leafy suburbs, obviously...). Then I'll demand that those people vote for me and double down on just how evil they are when they don't want to. 

    Alternatively I could encourage following the lead of western liberal democracies to gently educate, help where necessary and include, in order to gradually overcome our natural instincts without resorting to demonisation, hate and blame, which has led to the most inclusive, tolerant and open minded societies on the planet. Hmmm, which to choose...?

  18. Posted

    6 hours ago, Badger said:

    I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, however, I find what you write to be contradictory.

    On the one hand, you seem to be suggesting that racism, and wariness of other cultures is universal. On the other hand, you have denied that racism exists in our society and institutions.

    Please explain.

    What?! I have never said anything of the sort. I have said that I don't believe that your assertion (repeated on the Woke Left) that our "system is racist" is accurate or fair. I'm also aware of the propagandistic reasons why this description is being aggressively pushed and that it stems from the same mindset that led to the horrors of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

  19. Posted · Edited by Mr.Carrow

    1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

    We are off topic but capitalism / communism is all a bit too simple. It's all about different overlapping models most of which don't fit easily into any simplistic 'basket' i.e. the Nordic countries or China. Totalitarianism of both the left or right is the problem of which there are many examples.

    China, the elephant in this room,  is supposedly communist but at a local level is pretty much market lead, 99% of the people it seems are outright capitalists and happy with their lot (I will put to one side Tibet and Uighurs for now). It's always seems to me that people really want is to be left alone, make money by hard work, entrepreneurship but at the same time some benign overarching leadership and a known stable set of rules. Pure unfettered capitalism etc. would make each of us pay for our own Covid vaccines if we could afford it !

    Anyway - back to 'race'. I got fed up with people arguing definitions so I thought I'd give with care a few examples from my own family of what I would call subtle insidious societal 'racism'. All of the people quoted would of never thought they were racist!

    First my apologies to all my African friends as to the language. I use it only to emphasize and elucidate the the problems.

    My father, indeed my grandparents (I can hear them now) would often say such as 'The doctor/nurse was a 'darkie' but they are very nice". A variant would be be the doctor is as dark as coal - but ever so helpful. Similar for a new neighbor.

    What comes through loud and clear is their surprise that somebody with a very different ethnic background to themselves is indeed such a nice person and so well qualified. But if they hadn't met them in person their assumption seems to be to the negative simply because of their race, name and colour. Racism writ large. A 'white' person would of been accepted with no surprise at all!

    This is exactly the problem with many in society - it is their subconscious expectations of others, whereas one on one they quickly make 'new' friends. However, in many situations - the police being the most obvious, but also with employment these subconscious biases (negative expectations) can shine through. The cure is greater exposure to people of all 'races' where one will quickly discover that all can be good and bad as individuals.

    Lastly race is far from a white only issue - I have heard and seen the most terrible racism between other tribes too.

    Now I must admit  to my own shortcomings about anybody from Swindon.

     

     

    I have spent about 8 of the last 20 years traveling/living in non-white countries and I have had many conversations with fellow travelers about how experiencing the nuts and bolts of other peoples and cultures makes you more pragmatic and realistic about humanity and less idealistic. People are tribal and have a deep subconscious wariness of the "other". Where I am now they refer to the neighboring countries as burros (donkeys), in turn the denizens of that country refer to this as monos (monkeys). In my girlfriend's country I don't have a name, I am simply referred to as "foreigner" or "foreign horse" which is the locals jokey nickname for all foreign guys. The worst racism I ever witnessed was an actual punch-up at my old workplace between North and South Indians. I could go on....

    The identity politics Left with its utopian, puritan zeal seems utterly divorced from the messy, confusing, complex reality of human nature and relationships and pointing out that most evidence points to the fact that in evolutionary terms, humans seem to find it easy to be cooperative and empathetic below the Dunbar number, but the opposite once split into different tribes- particularly when those tribes look and behave differently- is generally met with abuse and the usual boring and lazy cop out that you must be a right wing N*zi for introducing inconvenient ideas into the conversation. The other predictable tactic is accuse you of being a "biological determinist" for pointing out that people's natural subconscious biases are not likely to be overcome with hectoring, lecturing or accusations of bigotry etc.

  20. Posted

    Incidentally whilst we're comparing political ideologies, which one does a dogma which divides people into victim/privilege oppressed/oppressor groups based on immutable characteristics have most in common with? 🤔

  21. Posted

    55 minutes ago, BigFish said:

    The thing is that communism was very effective in scaring the **** out of the west. This led to the rise of Social Democracy & a thriving middle class that the Marxists found hard to explain. With the collapse of the Soviet Union this fear factor disappeared and capitalism was allowed to let rip. Combined with technological advances and asset bubbles this is leading to a much more unequal society and a return of the two class system. This may be a flash in the pan and some clever technocrat will come up with a solution or it may be that Marxism's time has come 😉

    The ideologically blinkered right react with much the same obfuscation, sophistry and intellectual dishonesty when presented with these very logical points, as the ideologically blinkered Left does when presented with the fact that far Left ideas have ended in carnage pretty much whenever they've been tried and that very large and powerful sections of the modern Left desire to put us through the same rinser again.

  22. Posted · Edited by Mr.Carrow

    7 hours ago, Badger said:

    I think that you are misinformed. Orwell did not write 1984 about the the far Left (nor Animal Farm for that matter: it was a critique of totalitarianism, particularly that of Stalin, who was essentially a Fascist. It was a critique of the power of the state and totalitarianism.

    I think that you have fallen  for the old cliches that the right circulate about this, just as they argue that Hitler was a socialist because "the Nazis" was short form for "national socialists." 

    Large sections of the far Left (including the current Woke Left) are Totalitarian. Conflating Stalin (and I presume Mao, Pol Pot etc) with Fascism is as dumb as conflating Hitler with Socialism although there are certainly some points of similarity to both, largely top down totalitarian coercion. I'm sure you know of Horseshoe theory and whilst it isn't perfect I think it's pretty accurate.

    • Like 1

  23. Posted

    30 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    Well I really needn't add anything more, thanks for posting this utterly absurd quote. What a way to prove how intellectually impoverished you are. Lump in all these diverse theories and claims under one pejorative flabby term used by the far right to dismiss anything "disagreeable" that you can't be bothered to address.  And then, without the slightest sense of irony you had the unashamed audacity to claim that debate requires "nuance" and "complexity". Truly risible levels of contradiction and ignorance. Frankly I refuse to waste any more time responding to your ridiculous nonsense; time to mark some students' essays where I can at least guarantee not one of them will be foolish enough to drop in the word "woke" as if it carried any intellectual value whatsoever.

    I actually agree with you that it's regrettably clumsy. Unfortunately, like most people I don't have the time to pompously define  every single nuance of my position when most people who are even vaguely informed know exactly what I mean by Woke. It's actually a well known debating trick to obfuscate over obtuse definitional points to deflect from the fact that you are floundering in your argument. That you refuse to leave your echo chamber is your problem not mine. And I have no idea what those outlets are saying because I've never read them, however it is probably a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day. If you think that anything talked about on "the right" is automatically wrong then I think that defines your ideological blinkers rather nicely. 

  24. Posted

    14 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    No surprise you have still not made the slightest attempt to define "woke" in any meaningful way. To describe "woke" as "just a convenient term to group together clumsy terms" shows astonishing levels of ignorance and lack of self-awareness. You are clearly using it as a general pejorative slur against any views you happen to find disagreeable. This is exactly the way it is used by the Daily Express, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and the Tory Government. It must be a proud moment in your life to find yourself a mouthpiece for these right-wing bastions of the reactionary ruling class. I'm sure Corbyn would be very proud to read the tripe you have written on this thread.

    This from an earlier post of mine: "intersectionality/identity politics/grievance culture/cancel culture/reified postmodernism (all come under the general banner of "Woke")". Your comprehension skills are at about the same level as your political knowledge.

    • Like 1

  25. Posted

    22 minutes ago, horsefly said:

    Sorry but I've never met anyone who thought otherwise, this is another example of you setting up straw man claim that nobody argues. And since you claim to be a student of Orwell do feel free to tell us what you think he would have to say about a government, the controlling media, and people who constantly use the term "Woke" as a catch-all phrase to denigrate and dismiss those opinions with which they happen to disagree. Seems to me "Woke" would fit perfectly into the language of 1984.

    Pleased to see that some of the recent contributions on this thread have dropped using "woke" as if it has any intellectual or meaningful content, as there is indeed a great deal of work to be done in engaging with the specific issues society confronts. As KC rightly says, it is entirely compatible to be concerned about aspects of "identity politics" while still acknowledging that there is a real problem with institutionalised racism. Personally,  I find myself as vociferous in the defence of free speech as much as I am in denouncing racism. Hence, I find myself in opposition to those who "no-platform" people like Jenny Murray and Germaine Greer, just as I find myself in opposition to racists. It really doesn't require much stretch of the imagination to recognise that there is nothing particularly difficult in holding such a position. What is crucial here is to attend to the specific arguments in each case, and one thing for sure in this respect is that using the term "woke" to lump together all and any "progressive" views only serves to obscure the detailed critical analysis required.

    Well that's encouraging as you're clearly a liberal and the main point of my argument is that if you are a liberal it needs to be understood that Woke is not just illiberal but expressly and openly anti-liberal. As for the Woke term, I've already listed the rather clumsy terms it encompasses and,as with most linguistic shorthand, it is just used for convenience. "Using the term Woke to lump together all and any progressive views". Jesus........ By that logic I am lumping all the liberals I've linked on this thread plus disaffected Lefties such as myself (I joined Labour to back Corbyn when he was first up for leadership) and Orly under the banner of "Woke"! Can you please stop assuming you know what I'm talking about and actually do some research?

×
×
  • Create New...